THE NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY OF NEW TESTAMENT
THEOLOGY is a unique source of
information, invaluable to ministers, teachers,
and anyone interested in the study as well as
the teaching of the Bible.
Some of its main features are:
@ Concise discussion of the major theological
terms of the Bible
@ Arranged in English alphabetical order;
does not demand prior knowledge of Greek
or Hebrew
e Discusses the use of each key word in
classical and secular Greek, the Old
‘Testament and Rabbinic writings, the New
Testament usage and reference
@ English edition based on Theologisches
Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament,
extensively revised and enlarged
© Glossary of Technical Terms giving concise
definitions of specialist expressions and
usage in Vol. |
@ Index of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and
theological subjects (Vol. 1 and 2 separately
indexed, Combined Index to all three Vols.
in Vol. 3)
@ Full and up-to-date bibliographies
@ International team of contributors
The three-volume set of The New
International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
is a treasure house of knowledge concerning a
study of Greek words. But it is so written as to
be usable by pastors and lay people who are
not versed in the Greek language. It treats
these words in alphabetical order and relates
them to passages in which they appear in the
New Testament.
Unlike most works of this type, these
volumes provide 2 maximum of information
with a minimum of reading. I know ofno other
work like it. And I heartily recommend it to all
serious students of the New Testament.
Herschel H. Hobbs
Past President of the Southern Baptist
Convention on
The New
International
Dictionary
of New Testament
Theology
The New
International
Dictionary of
Companion Volume
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL |
DICTIONARY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Volume 2: G-Pre
New lIestament
Theolo gy
Colin Brown
GENERAL EDITOR
Translated, with additions and revisions, from the German
THEOLOGISCHES BEGRIFFSLEXIKON
ZUM NEUEN TESTAMENT
Edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther and Hans Bietenhard
Regen
na = pool
from Zondervan Publishing House
1415 Lake Drive, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506
THe NEw INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF NEw TESTAMENT THEOLOGY, VOL. 2
Originally published in German under the title,
THEOLOGISCHES BEGRIFFSLEXIKON ZUM NEUEN TESTAMENT
© 1967, 1969, 1971 by Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, Wuppertal. English Lan-
guage edition copyright © 1976, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
U.S.A. and The Paternoster Press, Ltd. Exeter, Devon, U.K.
All rights in this work are reserved by the publishers, and no part
may be reproduced without wntten permission, except for brief
quotations in reviews.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
The new international dictionary of New Testament
theology.
‘Translated, with additions and revisions, from the
German Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament,
edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther and Hans
Bietenhard.”’
“Companion volume: The new international dictionary
of the Christian Church.”
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
1. Bible. N.T.—Theology—Dictionanes. 2. Bible.
N.T.—Dictionanes. ‘I. Brown, Colin.
BS2397.N48 230’.03 75-38895
ISBN 0-310-21900-0
Printed in the United States of America
84 85 86 87 88— 10
Contents
PREFACE . 2, , : : ; 7
TABLE OF ARTICLES IN VOLUME 2 ; 1]
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 2 ; . : : 21
ARTICLES . : , . ; ; 27
INDEXES:
HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WORDS ; . . 937
GREEK WORDS . : , , , . 942
GENERAL INDEX ; ; ; : . 956
ADDENDA : ; : , ; . 1025
Preface
Omnis recta Dei cognitio ab obedientia nascitur — “‘All right knowledge of God is
born of obedience.” This was the testimony of Calvin in his Jnstitutes of the
Christian Religion, 1, 6, 2. It could be said that church history is the story of how
the people of God have learned this truth the hard way. The relevance of Calvin’s
observation does not stop there. What applies to institutions applies equally to
individual lives. Yet the Christian religion is not one of relentless dour demands
and gritted determination to do better next time. As Calvin went on to say, “‘Surely
in this respect God has, by his singular providence, taken thought for mortals
through all ages.”’
The Bible is not only the primary historical source for our knowledge of ancient
Israel and the beginnings of the Christian church; it is the record of God’s gracious
dealings with his people in times past and the Word of God for them today. The
obedience to which God calls is not blind submission but a considered response
to himself as he has revealed himself in the past — and as he continues to reveal
himself in the present in the light of the past.
The Reformers distinguished three aspects of faith: cognition, assent and trust.
Without the element of trust theology is a mere intellectual exercise which becomes
increasingly irrelevant in the modern world. But unless our trust has a basis in
fact — and can be shown to have a basis in fact — then faith is at the mercy of the
crank and the fanatic. Clearly, studying a work like The New International Dic-
tionary of New Testament Theology is no substitute for the obedience of which
Calvin spoke. Knowledge of God comes about in the whole range of life through
response to the God who reveals himself and illuminates our way in his Word.
But in order to be obeyed the Word must first be understood. It is with the under-
standing of the Word, as it is expressed in the words of the New Testament, that
this dictionary is concerned.
The present volume contains 106 main articles on New Testament concepts,
comprising 256 studies arranged under key Greek words or themes. The entries
under the key Greek words are normally divided into three parts as follows:
CL Discussion of the word in secular Greek. Uses of the word are illustrated by
reference not only to classical literature but also to inscriptions and papyri.
But in view of the expressly theological interest of the dictionary discussion here
is kept to a minimum.
oT Discussion of the word and related terms in the OT. The language of the
church in the NT era was Greek, and the Old Testament Scriptures used by
the church were largely the Greek translation of the Hebrew known as the
Septuagint (LXX). The discussion is therefore based on the terms as they occur
7
PREFACE
in the LXX, but comparing the LXX throughout with the corresponding Hebrew
Masoretic text. This section also takes account of terms as used by Philo,
Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and rabbinic writers.
NT Discussion of the word and related terms in the NT, noting statistical
occurrences, the use in relation to the background, and specific emphases of
individual writers and writings.
For further discussion of the layout and scope of the dictionary the reader is
referred to the Introduction to Volume I.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is based upon the
Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament which was first published in
German in 1965. In preparing this work for English readers the opportunity has
been taken to make revisions and to incorporate extensive new material. This
second volume contains 22 completely new articles and a total of 71 new entries
on key Greek words and related themes. However, in addition much new material
has been incorporated into the revision of the existing articles. The bibliographies
have been completely revised. As in Volume I, they have been divided into two
sections: (a) works in English, and (b) works in other languages. The purpose is to
offer readers a conspectus of literature as a guide to the immense amount of work
that has been carried out in biblical studies in recent years. The separation of the
two sections will enable them to see at a glance which works are relevant to their
particular needs. Most English readers will naturally wish to consult the works in
the first section. On the other hand, it was decided to include titles not available
in English in order to meet the needs of the more specialist student.
In his review of the first volume of this Dictionary Dr. I. H. Marshall suggested
that “‘It is probably best taken as a reference work to the words used in any
particular NT text, by means of which the reader may be guided to the ideas
expressed by those words and thus have a better understanding of the text” (EQ
48, 1976, 106). The Editor finds himself in basic agreement with this view, if it be
stressed that to understand the words of the text one has also to penetrate the
thought-world of their background. In preparing this English edition the over-
riding aim has been to present a concise and yet balanced guide to the theological
vocabulary of the NT in the light of international contemporary scholarship.
Like al] other academic disciplines, theological study has experienced a knowledge-
explosion in the last half-century. It is essential to the purpose of The New Inter-
national Dictionary of New Testament Theology to enable the reader to explore for
himself the new avenues of discovery that have been opened up and to weigh for
himself the views of scholars who have contributed to the modern study of the Bible.
The draft translation of the German original was prepared by a team of scholars
which included Professor G. H. Boobyer, the Rev. Dr. Colin Brown, Mr. H. L.
Ellison, the Rev. M. C. Freeman, the late Rev. Dr. George Ogg, Mr. John D.
Manton, the Rev. Philip J. Seddon, the Rev. David Sharp and the Rev. Dr. A. J. M.
Wedderburn. A particular debt of gratitude is owed to Professor F. F. Bruce,
Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis in the University of Man-
chester. In addition to the contributions which appear over his name, Professor
Bruce has read the entire work in galley and page proof. He has been unstinting
8
PREFACE
in the advice and expert help that he has given from first to last. Thanks are also
due to the Rev. A. C. Thiselton of the University of Sheffield for reading the type-
script of the bibliographies and for making many helpful suggestions. Once again
the Rev. Michael Sadgrove has shouldered the heavy burden of proof-reading
in the course of his doctoral studies at Oxford. The magnificent indexes are entirely
the work: of the Rev. Norman Hillyer whose sharp and fresh eye has also con-
tributed to the correction of the page proofs. On numerous points of detail the
Editor has benefited from the advice and comments of many friends and colleagues
in addition to those already named. Among them are Dr. Cleon Rogers, Principal
of the Freie Theologische Akademie, Seeheim, Bergstrasse, the Rev. J. A. Motyer,
the Rev. G. T. D. Angel, the Rev. P. J. Budd, Miss J. G. Baldwin, Miss E. M.
Embry and Miss M. Langley of Trinity College, Bristol, Mr. Alan Millard of the
University of Liverpool, Dr. D. W. Burdick of the Conservative Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary, Denver, Colorado, Dr. Janice Allister and Dr. M. G. Barker.
The article on Prayer contains the Eighteen Benedictions used in daily Jewish
prayer, in the translation of the Rev. R. A. Stewart which first appeared in his
book Rabbinic Theology: An Introductory Study, published by Oliver and Boyd,
1961. They are reproduced here by kind permission. Scripture quotations in this
Dictionary from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible are used by permission
of the owners of the copyright, the Department of Christian Education of the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.
Finally, the Editor would like to record once more his appreciation of the happy
co-operation at all stages of the work with the Editor of the German edition, Dr.
Lothar Coenen, and the German publishers, the Theologischer Verlag Rolf
Brockhaus of Wuppertal, and to thank them for their kind agreement to the
features incorporated in the English edition. He also wishes to pay tribute to the
skill and craftsmanship of the staff of Redwood Burn in producing such a handsome
book from a typescript which was often well-nigh illegible.
A full list of abbreviations and a key to the transliteration of Hebrew, Greek
and Arabic words will be found in Volume 1, pp. 31-47. Volume 1, pp. 49-72, also
contains a Glossary of Technical Terms which defines many of the terms currently
used in theological discussion.
For this new printing of the Dictionary, the opportunity has been taken to make a
number of minor corrections and alterations, and the bibliographies have been
updated in the Addenda.
C. Brown, 1981.
Table of Articles in Volume II
TITLE
Gall, Poison,
Wormwood
Gate, Door
Gather,
Scatter
Generation
Gift, Pledge,
Corban
Glory,
Honour
Goal,
Near,
Last, End,
Complete
God, Gods,
Emmanuel
Godliness,
Piety
Gold, Silver,
Bronze, Iron
Good, Beautiful,
KEY GREEK WORDS
xoan, 106,
awivGoc
mbAn, TvAG@YV
Obpa
ovvay@
oKoprila@
VEVER
appaBav
O@pov
Koppav
ooga
TINH
EYYUG
EOXATOG
TEAOG
Oedc
°Eppavoona
eblapeia
oéBopal
Xpvaos
apyvplov
yadKOG
aidnpoc
ayaddc
choleé, ios,
apsinthos
pylé, pylon
thyra
synago
skorpizo
genea
arrabon
doron
korban
doxa
time
engys
eschatos
telos
theos
Emmanouel
eulabeia
sebomai
chrysos
argyrion
chalkos
sidéros
agathos
AUTHOR PAGE
L. Morris 27
D. Hill 29
D. Hill 30
A. A. Trites 31
A. A. Trites 33
R. Morgenthaler, 35
C. Brown
O. Becker 39
H. Vorlander 40
C. Brown 43
S. Aalen 44
S. Aalen 48
W. Bauder, 52
H.-G. Link
H.-G. Link 55
R. Schippers 59
J. Schneider, 66
C. Brown,
J. Stafford Wright
J. Stafford Wright, 86
C. Brown
W. Mundle
W. Giinther
J. G. Baldwin
J. G. Baldwin
J. G. Baldwin
J. G. Baldwin
E. Beyreuther
90
91
95
96
96
97
98
11
TABLE OF ARTICLES
Kind
Gospel, Evangelize,
Evangelist
Grace, Spiritual Gifts
Greek
Grow
Guard, Keep,
Watch
Guilt,
Cause,
Convict, Blame
Hand,
Right Hand,
Left Hand,
Laying on of Hands
Hard, Hardened
Head
Heal
Hear,
Obey
Heart
Heaven,
12
Kadoc
XPNatOc
ebayyéAtov
xapic
“EAAnv
abéava
mAEovala
THPEW
pvAdcow
yenyopew@
Gypunvew
aitia
ELEVYO
EVOXOG
QUEUNTOG
O&E1a
aplotepoc,
EDCOVOLLOG
xEip
EritiOnul
oKAnpos
KEedady
bepaneb@
idoual
DYINC
GKOvW
b7aKobm
kapoia
avaBaivw
kalos
chréstos
euangelion
charis
Hellén
auxano
pleonazo
tereo
phylasso
gregoreo
agrypneo
aitia
elencho
enochos
amemptos
dexia
aristeros,
euonymos
cheir
epitithémi
skléros
kephalé
therapeuo
laomai
hygiés
akouo
hypakouo
kardia
anabaino
E. Beyreuther
E. Beyreuther
U. Becker
H.-H. Esser
H. Bietenhard
W. Gunther
W. Bauder,
D. Miiller
H.-G. Schiitz
H.-G. Schiitz,
C. Brown
C. Brown
C. Brown
F. Thiele,
C. Brown
H.-G. Link
F. Thiele
T. McComiskey
C. Blendinger
C. Brown
F. Laubach,
C. Brown
H.-G. Schiitz
U. Becker
K. Munzer,
C. Brown
F. Graber,
D. Miiller
F. Graber,
D. Miiller
D. Miiller
W. Mundle
W. Mundle
T. Sorg
B. Siede,
102
105
107
115
124
128
130
132
134
136
137
137
140
142
143
146
148
148
150
153
156
163
166
169
172
179
180
184
Ascend,
Above
Height,
Depth,
Exalt
Hell, Abyss,
Hades,
Gehenna,
Lower Regions
Herb, Plant, Grass
Hide,
Conceal
Hinder,
Prevent,
Forbid
Holy, Consecrate,
Sanctify, Saints,
Devout
Hope,
Expectation
House,
Build,
Manage,
Steward
Humility,
Meekness
Hunger,
Thirst,
Food,
Taste,
Eat,
Drink
I Am
Image,
Idol,
Imprint,
advo
ovpavoc
Ba@oc
byWoc
byow
adBvacos
GOns
VEEVVG,
KQTWTEPOG
Aadyxavov
KaAUNTO@
KpuUnto@
&VKONTO
KWAC@
dyloc
iepoc
0010C
éAnic
anoKkapadoxia
oikoc
OiKOOOLE®
oikovoypia
7™pavc
TANMELVOG
TLELVA
Bp@pa
YEVOLLAL
Eabiw
TIVO
EY eipti
eEld@Aov
elK QV
ZXapaktnp
ano
ouranos
bathos
hypsos
hypsoo
abyssos
hadeés
gehenna
katoteros
lachanon
katalypto
krypto
enkopto
kolyo
hagios
hieros
hosios
elpis
apokaradokia
oikos
oikodomeo
oikonomia
prays
tapeinos
peinao
broma
geuomali
esthio
pino
ego eimi
eidolon
eikon
charak tér
TABLE OF ARTICLES
C. Brown
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
J. Blunck
J. Blunck
D. Miiller
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
N. Hillyer
W. Mundle
W. Mundle
C. H. Peisker
C. H. Peisker
H. Seebass,
C. Brown
H. Seebass
H. Seebass
E. Hoffmann
E. Hoffmann
J. Goetzmann
J. Goetzmann
J. Goetzmann
W. Bauder
H.-H. Esser
W. Bauder
H. Kropatschek
E. Tiedtke
G. Braumann
G. Braumann
G. Braumann,
H.-G. Link
W. Mundle
O. Flender
J. Gess
278
284
286
288
13
TABLE OF ARTICLES
Example
Incense,
Myrrh
Inheritance,
Lot Portion
Israel, Jew
Hebrew, Jacob,
Judah
Jerusalem
Jesus Christ,
Nazarene,
Christian
Join,
Cleave to
Jonah
Joy,
Rejoice
Judgment,
Judge,
Deliver,
Judgment Seat
King, Kingdom
Knowledge,
Experience,
Ignorance
Lamb,
Sheep
Lame,
Crippled
Lament,
Sorrow,
14
anavbyaoua
UmMOdELY LA
UTOYPALLOG
TMApacElypLatiCa
AiBavoc
ouvpva
KARpos
HEPOG
"Iapanh
"laxop
’Iobtoea
"IepovoadAnu
’"Inoobc
Nalapnvoc
Xplotoc
X PloTIAVOG
KoAAGoual
"lwvac
ayadAdidoual
Eevppaiva
xaipa@
K pia
TApaotowmpl
Biya
KataolKaca@
Baowheia
aic@yaic
ylIVwWOK@
ayvoe@
GLVOG
mpoBatov
KvALOG
xXOAOG
KAQI@
KONTO
apaugasma
hypodeigma
hypogrammos
paradeigmatizo
libanos
smyrna
kléros
meros
TIsraél
Takob
louda
Terousalém
lésous
Nazarénos
Christos
Christianos
kollaomai
Tonas
agalliaomai
euphraino
chairo
krima
paradidomi
béma
katadikazo
basileia
aisthésis
gindskod
agnoeo
amnos
probaton
kyllos
cholos
klaio
kopto
J. Eichler
W. Mundle
R. Mayer
T. McComiskey
T. McComiskey
H. Schultz
K. H. Rengstorf
K. H. Rengstorf
K. H. Rengstorf
K. H. Rengstorf
H. Seebass
J. A. Motyer
E. Beyreuther
E. Beyreuther
E. Beyreuther,
G. Finkenrath
W. Schneider
H. Beck
T. McComiskey
T. McComiskey
B. Klappert
E. Schutz
E. D. Schmitz
E. Schutz
J. Gess
R. Tuente
R. K. Harrison
R. K. Harrison
H. Haarbeck
H. Haarbeck
361
367
369
370
372
Weep,
Groan
Large,
Small
Laugh
Law,
Custom,
Elements
Layman
Lead Astray,
Deceive
Leaven
Leprosy
Levite
Lie,
Hypocrite
Life
Light,
Shine,
Lamp
Like,
Equal
Lord,
Master
Lord’s Supper
Avméw@
Bpbxo
mEevOEw
otevalaw
bEyac
LIK pO
vEeAaw
&00c¢
VOMOC
otolxeia
LO1WTNC
TAaVvaw
Cony
AEM POG
AEN pa
Agvityc
bmoKpiv@
yevooual
Bioc
Con
AGUN@
AbxVOG
paiva
Eudavila@
POC
ioc
OMO1OG
OEONOTHC
KUploc
O&invov
lypeo
brycho
pentheo
stenazo
megas
mikros
gelao
ethos
nomos
stoicheia
idiotés
planao
zyme
lepros
lepra
Leuités
hypokrino
pseudomai
bios
zoe
lampo
lychnos
phaino
emphanizo
phos
isos
homoios
despotés
kyrios
deipnon
TABLE OF ARTICLES
H. Haarbeck,
H.-G. Link
T. McComiskey
T. McComiskey
T. McComiskey
F. Thiele
F. Thiele
E. M. Embry
H.-H. Esser
H.-H. Esser
H.-H. Esser
O. Flender
W. Giinther
G. T. D. Angel
R. K. Harrison
R. K. Harrison
H. L. Ellison
W. Giinther
U. Becker,
H.-G. Link
H.-G. Link
H.-G. Link
H.-C. Hahn
H.-C. Hahn
H.-C. Hahn
T. McComiskey
H.-C. Hahn,
C. Brown
E. Beyreuther
E. Beyreuther,
G. Finkenrath,
M. Farmery
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
B. Klappert
419
421
421
423
424
427
429
457
461
463
464
466
467
470
474
476
484
486
487
488
490
496
500
508
510
520
15
TABLE OF ARTICLES
Love
Magic,
Sorcery,
Magi
Man
Mark,
Brand
Marriage,
Adultery,
Bride,
Bridegroom
Melchizedek,
Salem
Mercy,
Compassion
Might,
Authority,
Throne
Mind
Miracle,
Wonder,
Sign
Moses
Myth
Name
16
ayanaw
piréw
Layeia
avnp
av@pwnoc
aponv
otiyua
- Yapayua.
Kavotnpiala@
VALLE
woiyEebo
v0ugn
koity
OTMEPAKLLOG
MedyioedéK
Laan
EXEOC
OIKTIPLOG
oniayxva
OOVaLLIC
éCovoia
Opovoc
PpOvyaic
daiua
onpeiov
TEPAC
Moionc
pLbd00¢
OvoLa
agapao
philed
mageia
aner
anthropos
arsen
stigma
charagma
kaustériazo
gameo
moicheuod
nymphé
koité
hyperakmos
Melchisedek
Salém
eleos
oiktirmos
splanchna
dynamis
exousia
thronos
phronésis
thauma
semeion
teras
Moyseés
mythos
onoma
W. Giinther, 538
H.-G. Link
W. Giinther, 547
C. Brown
C. Brown, 552
J. Stafford Wright
H. Vorlander, 562
C. Brown
H. Vorlander, 564
J. Stafford Wright
C. Brown 569
R. P. Martin §72
R. P. Martin 573
R. P. Martin 574
W. Giinther, 575
C. Brown
H. Reisser 582
W. Giinther 584
T. McComiskey 586
C. Brown 587
B. A. Demarest 590
B. A. Demarest 592
H.-H. Esser 593
H.-H. Esser 598
H.-H. Esser 599
O. Betz 601
O. Betz 606
C. Blendinger 611
J. Goetzmann 616
W. Mundle 620
O. Hofius, 626
C. Brown
O. Hofius 633
H. Seebass, 635
C. Brown
F. F. Bruce 643
H. Bietenhard, 648
F. F. Bruce
Nature
Necessity,
Must,
Obligation
New
Nicolaitan
Nineveh
Noah
Number
Offence,
Scandal,
Stumbling Block
Oil,
Olive,
Gethsemane
Old
One,
Once,
Only
pvaic
avaykKn
Osi
dpeiA@
TpETO
Kalvoc
VEOC
Nikohaitys
Niveoy
Noé
apiOuoc
dbo
Tpéic
TpitoOG
EVIAVTODG TPEIC
Kai pnvac &E
TEDOGPEG
MEVTE
ENT.
OKTO
OEKa
OEKGTH
O@OEKG
TECOEPAKOVTA
EBoounKoyvta
xyiAiac
Tpookoppa
oKavoadov
&Aalov
maAal
anaé
éic
[OVvoG
physis
anayké
dei
opheilo
prepo
kainos
neos
Nikolaités
Nineué
Noe
arithmos
dyo
treis
tritos
eniautous tres
kai ménas hex
tessares
pente
hepta
okto
deka
dekaté
dodeka
tesserakonta
hebdomékonta
chilias
proskomma
skandalon
elaion
palai
hapax
heis
monos
TABLE OF ARTICLES
G. Harder
R. Morgenthaler
E. Tiedtke,
H.-G. Link
E. Tietdke,
H.-G. Link
C. Brown
H. Haarbeck,
H.-G. Link,
C. Brown
H. Haarbeck
C. J. Hemer
T. McComiskey,
C. Brown
F. F. Bruce
E. D. Schmitz,
C. J. Hemer
. Hemer
mam ANN
cael
D
J
_D.
J
J
OOO 2 ©
Ou
R. T. France
H. Haarbeck
K.-H. Bartels
K.-H. Bartels
K.-H. Bartels
656
662
664
666
TABLE OF ARTICLES
Open,
Close,
Key
Openness,
Frankness,
Boldness
Orphan
Other
Parable,
Allegory,
Proverb
Paradise
Patience,
Steadfastness,
Endurance
Peace
Pentecost,
Feast of
People,
Nation,
Gentiles,
Crowd,
City
Persecution,
Tribulation,
Affliction
Pharisee
Please
Poor
18
avoiyo
kK AéIC
nmappnoia
éppavoc
adios,
ETEPOG
napapoAn
Tapoipia
MAapadelaoc
avéyopal
KApPTEpeW
pakpoOvpia
OTOMEVOOD
eipyvn
MEVTNKOOTH
ORLOG
EOvoc
AQOG
ORO
MOAKIC
O1MK@
Ohiwic
Papicaioc
apéoK@
EDOOKE
TEV
MTMOYOC
anoigo
kleits
parrhésia
orphanos
allos,
heteros
parabolé
paroimia
paradeisos
anechomai
kartereo
makrothymia
hypomeno
eiréné
pentékosté
démos
ethnos
laos
ochlos
polis
dioko
thlipsis
Pharisaios
aresko
eudokeo
peneés
ptochos
C. H. Peisker,
C. Brown
D. Miller,
C. Brown
H.-C. Hahn
J. Pridmore
F. Selter,
C. Brown
C. H. Peisker,
C. Brown
C. H. Peisker
H. Bietenhard,
C. Brown
U. Falkenroth,
C. Brown
W. Mundle
U. Falkenroth,
C. Brown
U. Falkenroth,
C. Brown
H. Beck,
C. Brown
J.D. G. Dunn
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
G
R
. Ebel
. Schippers
D. Miiller
H. Bietenhard
H. Bietenhard
L. Coenen
H.-H. Esser,
C. Brown
726
729
734
737
739
743
756
760
764
767
768
772
776
783
788
790
795
800
801
805
807
810
814
817
820
821
Possessions,
Treasure,
Mammon,
Wealth,
Money
Pour
Prayer,
Ask,
Kneel,
Beg,
Worship,
Knock
Present,
Day,
Maranatha,
Parousia
Onoavpoc thésauros
papovac mamonas
MEPINOLEOLGL peripoieomai
mtAObTOCG ploutos
YpHUG chréma
Coins in the Bible and
Theological Issues
EKXEW ekcheo
aitéw aiteo
YVOVUTLETED gonypeted
O€opal deomai
TpooEbdXOUal proseuchomai
TLPOOKDVEW proskyneo
Epwtaw erotad
Kpovm@ krouo
évtvy XaVvO entynchano
nuépa hémera
papavadd. maranatha
mapovaia parousia
The Parousia and Eschatology
in the NT
TABLE OF ARTICLES
J. Eichler,
C. Brown
C. Brown
E. Beyreuther
F. Selter
F. Selter
G. L. Archer, Jr.
R. T. France
H. Schonweiss
H. Schonweiss
H. Schonweiss
H. Schonweiss,
C. Brown
H. Schonweiss,
C. Brown
G. T. D. Angel
G. T. D. Angel
C. Brown
G. Braumann,
C. Brown
W. Mundle,
C. Brown
G. Braumann
C. Brown
829
19
Contributors
Editors and Advisors
Editor of the English edition . . . . Colin Brown
General Editor of the German edition Lothar Coenen
Greek philology, philosophy and
classical background ._—C«y. . . Gerhard Fries
Old Testament and cause: . . . Horst Seebass
Qumran... ........ Reinhard Deichgraber
Rabbinics. . . . ... . Hans Bietenhard
New Testament philology and theology Hans Bietenhard
Church history and historical
theology . . .. ..... Erich Beyreuther
Bibliographical consultant to the
Germanedition . . . . Werner Georg Kiimmel
Indexes . . . . . . . . . Norman Hillyer
Contributors to Volume 2
In the following list the author’s work is denoted by the Greek words or sub-title
which follow the title.
Sverre Aalen, Dr. theol., Professor, Oslo
Glory, Honour, doxa, timé
Gervais T. D. Angel, M.A., M.Ed., Dean of Studies, Trinity College, Bristol
Leaven, zymé; Prayer, Ask, Kneel, Beg, Worship, Knock, erdtad, kroud
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., B.A., LL.B., A.M., Ph.D., B.D., Professor, Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois
Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money, Coins in the Bible and Theological
Issues
Joyce G. Baldwin, B.A., B.D., Dean of Women, Trinity College, Bristol
Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron, chrysos, argyrion, chalkos, sidéros
Karl-Heinz Bartels, Dr. theol., Niderbieber
One, Once, Only, hapax, heis, monos
21
CONTRIBUTORS
Wolfgang Bauder, Cologne
Goal, Near, Last, End, Complete, engys (part); Grow, pleonazo (part); Humility,
Meekness, prays; Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink, peinao
Hartmut Beck, Karlsruhe
Judgment, Judge, Deliver, Judgment Seat, paradidomi; Peace, eiréné (part)
Oswald Becker, Bonn
Gift, Pledge, Corban, arraboén
Ulrich Becker, Dr. theol., Professor, Hanover
Gospel, evangelion
Ulrich Becker, Osterwald tiber Wunstorf
Hard, Hardened, sk/éros; Lie, Hypocrite, pseudomai (part)
Otto Betz, Dr. theol., Professor, Tiibingen
Might, Authority, Throne, dynamis, exousia
Erich Beyreuther, Dr. theol., Feldkirchen, Munich
Good, Beautiful, Kind, agathos, kalos, chréstos; Joy, Rejoice, agalliaomai, euphraino,
chairo (part); Like, Equal, isos, homoios (part); Possessions, Treasure, Mammon,
Wealth, Money, peripoieomai
Hans Bietenhard, Dr. theol., Professor, Steffisburg
Greek, Hellén; Heaven, Ascend, Above, ano, ouranos; Hell, Abyss, Hades, Gehenna,
Lower Regions, abyssos, hadés, gehenna, katoteros; Lord, Master, despotés, kyrios;
Name, onoma (part); Paradise, paradeisos (part); People, Nation, Gentiles, Crowd,
City, démos, ethnos, laos, ochlos, polis; Please, areskd, eudoked
Christian Blendinger, Nuremberg
Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying on of Hands, dexia; Might, Authority,
Throne, thronos
Jiirgen Blunck, Solingen
Height, Depth, Exalt, bathos, hypsos
Georg Braumann, Dr. theol., Billerbeck
Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink, esthid, pind; I Am, ego eimi (part); Present,
Day, Maranatha, Parousia, hémera (part), parousia
Colin Brown, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA
Generation, genea (part); Gift, Pledge, Corban, korban; God, Gods, Emmanuel,
theos (part), Emmanouél (part); Guard, Keep, Watch, phylasso (part), grégoreo,
agrypneo; Guilt, Cause, Convict, Blame, aitia (part); Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand,
Laying on of Hands, aristeros, eudnymos, cheir (part); Head, kephalé (part); Heaven,
Ascend, Above, anabaino (part); Holy, Consecrate, Sanctify, Saints, Devout, hagios
(part); Incense, Myrrh, smyrna; Light, Shine, Lamp, phos (part); Love, phileo (part);
Magic, Sorcery, Magi, mageia (part); Man, anér (part), arsén; Marriage, Adultery,
Bride, Bridegroom, gameo (part), hyerakmos; Miracle, Wonder, Sign, sémeion (part);
Moses, Moysés (part); Necessity, Must, Obligation, prepd; New, kainos (part);
Nineveh, Nineué (part); Number, chilias; Open, Close, Key, avoigd (part), kleis
(part); Other, al/los, heteros (part); Parable, Allegory, Proverb, parabolé (part);
Paradise, paradeisos (part); Patience, Steadfastness, Endurance, anechomai (part),
makrothymia (part), hypomeno (part); Peace, eiréné (part); Poor, ptdchos (part);
Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money, thésauros (part), mamonas;
Prayer, Ask, Kneel, Beg, Worship, Knock, proseuchomai (part), proskyneo (part),
entynchano; Present, Day, Maranatha, Parousia, hémera (part), maranatha (part),
The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT
Frederick Fyvie Bruce, M.A., D.D., F.B.A., Emeritus Professor, University of —
Manchester |
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, hypogrammos; Myth, mythos; Name, onoma (part); |
Noah, Noe |
22
CONTRIBUTORS
Lothar Coenen, Dr. theol., Wuppertal
Poor, penés .
Bruce A. Demarest, M.A., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Conservative Baptist Theological
Seminary, Denver, Colorado
Melchizedek, Salem, Melchisedek, Salém
James D. G. Dunn, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Lecturer, University of Nottingham
Pentecost, Feast of, pentékosté
Gimther Ebel, Speyer
Persecution, Affliction, Tribulation, didkd
Johannes Eichler, Frankfurt am Main
Inheritance, Lot, Portion, k/éros; Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money,
thésauros
Henry Leopold Ellison, B.A., B.D., Dawlish, Devon
Levite, Leuités
E. Margaret Embry, B.A., B.D., Lecturer, Trinity College, Bristol
Laugh, gelad
Hans-Helmut Esser, Dr. theol., Professor, Horstmar bei Miinster
Grace, Spiritual Gifts, charis; Humility, Meekness, tapeinos; Law, Custom, Elements,
ethos, nomos, stoicheia; Mercy, Compassion, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchna; Poor,
ptochos (part)
Ulrich Falkenroth, Dr. theol., Braunschweig
Patience, Steadfastness, Endurance, anechomai (part), makrothymia (part), hypomend
(part)
Michael Farmery, B.D., Bristol
Like, Equal, homoios (part)
Ginter Finkenrath, Burscheid-Hilgen
Joy, Rejoice, chairé (part); Like, Equal, homoios (part)
Otto Flender, Villigst
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, eikén; Layman, ididtés
Richard Thomas France, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in New Testament, London
Bible College, Northwood, Middlesex
Oil, Olive, Gethsemane, elaion; Pour, ekched
Johannes Gess, Kassel
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, charaktér; Lamb, Sheep, amnos
Jiirgen Goetzmann, Essen
House, Build, Manage, Steward, oikos, oikodomed, oikonomia; Mind, phronésis
Friedrich Graber, Riehen, Basel
Heal, therapeuod (part), iaomai (part)
Walther Giinther, Dr. theol., Stuttgart
Godliness, Piety, sebomai; Grow, auxand; Lead Astray, Deceive, planad; Lie,
Hypocrite, hypokrind; Love, agapao (part), philed (part); Marriage, Adultery, Bride,
Bridegroom, gameo (part), nymphé
Joachim Guhrt, Bentheim
Offence, Scandal, Stumbling Block, proskomma, skandalon
Hermann Haarbeck, Schwelm
Lament, Sorrow, Weep, Groan, klaid, koptd, lyped (part); New, kainos (part), neos;
Old, palai
Hans-Christoph Hahn, Bad Boll
Light, Shine, Lamp, lampé, lychnos, phaind, phos (part); Openness, Frankness,
Boldness, parrhésia
Gimther Harder, Dr. theol., Dr. jur., Professor, Berlin
Nature, physis
23
CONTRIBUTORS
Murray, J. Harris, M.A., Ph.D., Professor, Bible College of New Zealand, Auckland,
New Zealand
Number, dekaté
Roland K. Harrison, B.D., M.Th., Ph.D., D.D., Professor, Wycliffe College, Toronto
Lame, Crippled, kyllos, cholos; Leprosy, lepros, lepra
Colin J. Hemer, M.A., Ph.D., Librarian, Tyndale Hall, Cambridge
Nicolaitan, Nikolaités; Number, arithmos (part), dyo, treis, tritos, eniautous treis kai
ménas hex, pente, okt6, deka, tesserakonta, hebdomékonta
David Hill, B.D., S.T.M., Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, University of Sheffield
Gate, Door, pylé, pylon, thyra
Norman Hillyer, B.D., S.Th., formerly Librarian of Tyndale House, Cambridge
Herb, Plant, Grass, lachanon; Incense, Myrrh, libanos
Ernst Hoffmann, Vevey
Hope, Expectation, elpis, apokaradokia
Otfried Hofius, Dr. theol., Professor, Paderborn
Miracle, Wonder, Sign, sémeion (part), teras
Bertold Klappert, Dr. theol., Gottingen
King, Kingdom, basileia; Lord’s Supper, deipnon
Hans Kropatschek, Lic. theol., Gottingen
Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink, broma
Fritz Laubach, Dr. theol., Hamburg
Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying on of Hands, cheir (part)
Hans-Georg Link, Dr. theol., Cologne
Goal, Near, Last, End, Complete, engys (part), eschatos; Guilt, Cause, Convict,
Blame, elenchd; I Am, ego eimi (part); Lament, Sorrow, Weep, Groan, lypeo (part);
Lie, Hypocrite, pseudomai (part); Life, bios, z6é; Love, agapao (part); Necessity,
Must, Obligation, dei (part); opheild (part); New, kainos (part)
Thomas McComiskey, B.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School,
Deerfield, Illinois .
Guilt, Cause, Convict, Blame, amemprtos; Israel, Jew, Hebrew, Jacob, Judah, Jak6b,
Iouda; Judgment, Judge, Deliver, Judgment Seat, béma, katadikazo; Lament,
Sorrow, Weep, Groan, brycho, penthed, stenazo; Light, Shine, Lamp, emphainizo;
Marriage, Adultery, Bride, Bridegroom, koité; Nineveh, Nineué (part)
Ralph P. Martin, M.A., Ph.D., Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena,
California
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, apaugasma, hypodeigma, paradeigmatizo; Mark,
Brand, stigma, charagma, kaustériazo
Reinhold Mayer, Dr. theol., Wiss. Rat, Tiibingen
Israel, Jew, Hebrew, Jacob, Judah, Jsraé/
Robert Morgenthaler, Dr. theol., Professor, Muri bei Bern
Generation, genea (part); Necessity, Must, Obligation, ananké
Leon L. Morris, B.Sc., Ph.D., formerly Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne
Gall, Poison, Wormwood, chol2, ios, apsinthos
John Alexander Motyer, M.A., B.D., Principal of Trinity College, Bristol
Jonah, Jonas
Dietrich Miller, Marburg
Grow, pleonazo (part); Heal, therapeuo (part), iaomai (part), hygiés; Height, Depth,
Exalt, hypsod; Open, Close, Key, k/eis (part); Pharisee, Pharisaios
Wilhelm Mundle, Lic. theol., Professor, Marburg
Godliness, Piety, eulabeia; Hear, Obey, akoud, hypakoud; Hide, Conceal, katalypto,
krypto; Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, eiddlon; Inheritance, Lot, Portion, meros;
24 |
CONTRIBUTORS
Miracle, Wonder, Sign, thauma; Patience, Steadfastness, Endurance, kartereo;
Present, Day, Maranatha, Parousia, maranatha (part)
Karlfried Munzer, Gauting
Head, kephalé (part)
Carl Heinz Peisker, Dr. theol., Miilheim, Ruhr
Hinder, Prevent, Forbid, enkopté, koly6; Open, Close, Key, anoigod (part); Parable,
Allegory, Proverb, parabolé (part), paroimia
John Pridmore, M.A., Witley
Orphan, orphanos
Horst Reisser, Ilten
Marriage, Adultery, Bride, Bridegroom, moicheud
Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, D. theol., Dr. theol., D.D., Professor, Minster
Jesus Christ, Nazarene, Christian, /ésous, Nazarénos, Christos, Christianos
Reinier Schippers, Dr. theol., Professor, Amsterdam
Goal, Near, Last, End, Complete, te/os; Persecution, Tribulation, Affliction, thlipsis
Ernst Dieter Schmitz, Wuppertal
Knowledge, Experience, Ignorance, ginédskod; Number, arithmos (part), tessares,
hepta, dddeka
Johannes Schneider, D. theol., Dr. theol., Professor, Berlin
God, Gods, Emmanuel, theos (part)
Walter Schneider, Hanover
Judgment, Judge, Deliver, Judgment Seat, krima
Hans Schoénweiss, Dr. theol., Stuttgart
Prayer, Ask, Kneel, Beg, Worship, Knock, aited, gonypeted, deomai, proseuchomai
(part), proskyneo (part)
Eduard Schiitz, Dr. theol., Hamburg
Knowledge, Experience, Ignorance, aisthésis, agnoed
Hans-Georg Schiitz, Dr. theol., Dortmund
Guard, Keep, Watch, téred, phylasso (part); Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying
on of Hands, epitithémi
Helmut Schultz, Marburg
Jerusalem, Jerousalém
Horst Seebass, Dr. theol., Miinster
Holy, Consecrate, Sanctify, Saints, Devout, hagios (part), hieros, hosios; Join, Cleave
to, kollaomai; Moses, Moyseés (part)
Friedel Selter, Rheinkamp-Repelen
Other, allos, heteros (part); Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money,
ploutos, chréma
Burghard Siede, Coburg
Heaven, Ascend, Above, anabaino (part)
Theo Sorg, Stuttgart
Heart, kardia
Friedrich Thiele, Kassel
Guilt, Cause, Convict, Blame, aitia (part), enochos; Large, Small, megas, mikros
Erich Tiedtke, Frankfurt am Main
Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink, geuomai; Necessity, Must, Obligation,
dei (part), opheild (part)
Allison A. Trites, M.A., Ph.D., Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, Wolfville,
Nova Scotia
Gather, Scatter, synagd, skorpizo
Rudolf Tuente, Bremerhaven
Lamb, Sheep, probaton
25
CONTRIBUTORS
Herwart Vorlander, Dr. phil., Professor, Ludwigsburg
Gift, Pledge, Corban, doron, Man, anér (part), anthropos (part)
J. Stafford Wright, M.A., formerly Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol
God, Gods, Emmanuel, theos (part), Emmanouél (part); Magic, Sorcery, Magi,
mageia (part); Man, anthropos (part)
26
Gall, Poison, Wormwood
These words are linked by the common association of bitterness and harmfulness.
The notions of bitterness and poison seem to have been closely connected in the
thought of antiquity. The terms vary in the extent of the destructiveness that they
signify, but there is nothing attractive about any of them. This leads to a common
usage in a metaphorical sense, and all three are employed to convey thoughts of
bitterness and the like.
xvodn (cholé), gall, bile; idc¢ (ios), poison; dyiv@oc
xody, 1c, dyivGoc (apsinthos), wormwood.
CL & OT cholé appears to be cognate with the Lat. (A)olus, perhaps also with the
Gk. chioé (green shoot, grass), and to refer in the first instance to the folour,
of bilé"from which it comes to be used of gall or bile itself. But the impressive
thing was clearly its bitter taste. Arndt (891) cites the tragedian Philocles: epekaleito
Cholé dia to pikron (who “was called Cholé because of his bitterness’’). In the
LXX the word translates a variety of Heb. words and all three meanings, “‘gall’’,
“poison” and “‘wormwood”’ are found: (1) m®rordah, gall (Job 20:14); (2) ré’s,
poison (Deut. 32:32; Ps. 69:21 [68:22]; cf. Matt. 27:34); (3) la‘*nadh, wormwood
(Prov. 5:4; Lam. 3:15). On occasion the word refers to a plant (e.g. Deut. 29:18;
32:32), but it remains uncertain which plant is meant.
There is dispute over the derivation of ios, and whether it means “‘arrow”’ as well
as “‘poison’’, or whether this is another word. O. Michel is emphatic that the two
should be distinguished and connects the word for poison with the Sanskrit visa
and the Lat. virus (TDNT III 334; cf. Liddell-Scott, 832). In secular Gk. the term is
used of a variety of poisons, especially of the poison of snakes (Liddell-Scott note
its use also for the venom of a mad dog). It is used for the rust on iron and also of
other deposits, such as verdigris and the patina on bronze statues. In the LXX ios
is used for hel’ah, rust (Ezek. 24:6, 11 f.), and hémdah, poison (Ps. 140[139]:3). It
also occurs in the LXX of Ps. 14 [13]:3; the Epistle of Jeremy 12, 24; Prov. 23:32;
and Lam. 3:13, where it means an arrow.
apsinthos occurs in several secular Gk. forms. Most usual is the neut. apsinthion,
but the fem. apsinthia is also found as well as the form apsinthos which is usually
designated fem., but which is masc. in Rev. 8:11 (perhaps because it is the name of
a star, astér, which is masc.). This last form is not found in the LXX or in classical
authors. All the forms noted refer to some variety of the plant group Artemisia, of
which several varieties occur in Palestine. All of them have a very bitter taste.
apsinthion occurs in Aquila’s translation of Prov. 5:4; Jer. 9:15(14); 23:15.
Zl
GALL
NT Two of the terms are used in the NT in the literal sense. cholé is used of the wine
mixed with “‘gall’’ which was offered to Jesus as the soldiers prepared to crucify
him (Matt. 27:34). In view of the parallel in Mk. 15:23, it seems that the word here
refers to myrrh. ([Ed.] “According to the Talmud (San. 43a, cf. Prov. 31.6—-7) a
man about to be executed could beg a ‘grain of incense’ (a narcotic) in wine in
order to dull his senses and alleviate pain. Jesus refuses the sedative and heroically
endures his sufferings to the end” [D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 353].
Matt. 27:48; Mk. 15:36; Lk. 23:36; and Jn. 19:29 f. relate how a soldier sub-
sequently gave Jesus oxos, sour wine or wine vinegar, which relieved the thirst
more effectively than water and was popular in the lower strata of society because
it was cheaper than ordinary wine [Arndt, 577 f.]. Like Matt. 27:34, this may also
have been seen as a fulfilment of Ps. 69:21[68:22]. Gos. Pet. 5:15 f. gives the
impression that the cholé was actually poison [cf. the MT of Ps. 69:21] which was
mixed with wine and given to Jesus to hasten his death before nightfall. Jesus’
death ensued not long afterwards.) apsinthos likewise appears to be understood
literally in Rev. 8:11: ““The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters
became wormwood, and many men died of the water, because it was made bitter.”’ It
is part of a vision of judgment on the ungodly world (see further discussion below).
But all the terms are also used metaphorically and this is the more important
usage for an understanding of the NT. Outside the NT cholé is used for ‘“‘bitter
anger”, “wrath” (Liddell-Scott, 1997), but this does not appear to be the case in
the NT. The thought is always that of bitterness. Thus Simon Peter charged Simon
Magus with being “in the gall [cholé] of bitterness’? (Acts 8:23), when he had
offered the apostle money for the gift of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying
on of hands. The thought is that to have such a complete misunderstanding of
Christianity is not simply to be pleasantly mistaken. It is to find oneself in a
situation which must be described in terms of bitterness. Simon had had an inkling
of what Christianity was all about. He had welcomed the gospel and accepted bap-
tism. It is not clear whether he himself received the laying on of hands (— Hand),
but he was certainly numbered among the band of converts. It was an exceedingly
bitter thing when a man of whom so much might well have been expected proved
to be so completely out of harmony with the gospel. He was caught in a bitter
bondage to sin.
So it is with ios. In Romans 3 Paul is concerned with the universality of sin and
with the way sin finds expression in what men say. ““The poison of asps”’ is under
the lips of sinners (Rom. 3:13), a quotation Paul takes from Ps. 140:3 (LXX |
139:4). In his catena of quotations Paul lays emphasis on what words can do, ©
referring to the throat, the tongue, the lips and the mouth (“‘feet’? and “‘eyes’’ are
mentioned once each, vv. 15, 18, but no other part of the body). The deadliness of .
wicked speech is stressed. James likewise finds “‘poison”’ an apt word for the un-
tamed tongue. He thinks that such a tongue is capable of all sorts of evil and brings —
out the harm it causes by referring to it as “‘full of deadly poison” (Jas. 3:8). It
is apparently the same word when James castigates the rich for their “rusted” gold
and silver and sees the “‘rust’’ as evidence against them and as something that will |
in due course eat them up (Jas. 5:3). There is a problem in that — gold and silver
do not rust, but James is speaking metaphorically and expressing forcefully the
view that the treasures of the rich are tarnished and tainted and tainting.
28
1
|
|
GALL/GATE
There is a problem in the use of apsinthos in Rev. 8:11. It is used as the name of
a star and then it describes the water into which the star fell. Obviously the water
became bitter and the name of the star is connected with this bitterness. The
problem is that in Revelation the water causes death, whereas wormwood, at
least as we understand the term, is bitter but not poisonous. The author may have
in mind a substance other than the wormwood we know and which was genuinely
poisonous. Or he may be employing a way of speech we have already noted in
antiquity whereby bitterness and poison were connected. He may be reasoning
from the bitterness of the taste to the bitterness of the results. This fits in also with
the fact that in the OT wormwood is used of God’s punishment of the wicked, e.g.
‘“‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will feed this people
with wormwood, and give them poisonous water to drink” (Jer. 9:15 RSV; cf.
23:15; Lam. 3:15, 19; the LXX does not use apsinthos, but the meaning is the same).
: L. Morris
— Bitter, — Dragon, Serpent, Scorpion, Sting, — Wine
Arndt, 128 f., 379, 891; Liddell-Scott, 229, 832, 1997; O. Michel, ios, TDNT III 334 ff.
Gate, Door
; - mbAn (pylé), gate, door; mvAa@v (pylon), gate, gateway,
ie
CL In classical Greek py/é is used, mostly in the plural, to mean the gates of a town,
although it appears in the tragedians with the meaning house-door (— thyra).
It can be employed in a general sense to designate any entrance or opening (e.g. a
geographical pass or straits), The gates of Hades is a fairly common periphrasis
for the nether world, the realm of the dead (cf. Homer, J/. 5, 646; 9, 312; Od. 14,
156; Aesch., Ag. 1291). pylon means a gateway or gate-house.
oT In the LXX pylé translates chiefly Sa‘ar which is used to refer to: (a) the gate of
a city, building, farm or village; (b) the area immediately inside a city-gate;
and (c) the gate(s) of death (Job 38:17; Ps. 107:18), of Sheol (Isa. 38:10) and of
heaven (Gen. 28:17). pylén usually translates Sa‘ar or petah: the latter denotes an
entrance, gate or doorway.
NT 1. Literal Meaning. In the NT pylé denotes: (a) a city-gate (Lk. 7:12; Acts 9:24;
16:13): that Jesus suffered outside the gate (Heb. 13:12; cf. Lev. 16:17) em-
phasizes that his suffering represents the true offering of the Day of Atonement
and that, in his death, he is classified with law-breakers who were stoned outside:
the camp (Lev. 24:14; Num. 15:35); (b) a gate of the temple (Acts 3:10; cf. Acts
3:2 which uses thyra); (c) a prison gate (Acts 12:10) — thyra.
2. Figurative Use. (a) pylé is used of the narrow gate (cf. Lk. 13:24 which, in a
rather different context, uses thyra) through which one must pass to enter into life
(Matt. 7:13 f.). This image was familiar in the ancient world and here indicates an
entrance that is difficult to find and hence ignored by many. The Matthean instruc-
tion on the two gates and two ways — and these are synonymous metaphors — is not
29
GATE
so clearly eschatological in character as the corresponding verse in Lk. In the con-
text of the well-known catechetical schema the words form an appeal to decision
to follow Christ and face all the consequences that obedience entails.
(b) py/é is used of the gates of Hades in Matt. 16:18. The image expresses the
commonly-held ancient idea that the underworld was secured by strong gates
which prevented escape and barred access to invaders. In pre-Christian Jewish
usage the expression functions as a pars pro toto term for Hades (— Hell), i.e. the
realm of the dead, even death itself (Isa. 38:10; Wis. 16:13; 3 Macc. 5:51; Ps.
Sol. 16:2). It is improbable that the gates of Hades in Matt. 16 denotes the ungodly
powers of the underworld which assail the rock (cf. TDNT VI 927), for Hades is
not regarded as the abode of evil powers, whence they emerge to attack men. In
the light of the Jewish background, the image is best understood as affirming that
death, in spite of its hitherto unconquerable power, will not win control over the
rock or, more probably, over the ekklésia erected on the rock: death will not
vanquish the messiah who builds the church, nor the members of the messianic
community. Por fal
pylon denotes: (a) the gateway or porch of a house (Matt. 26:71; Lk. 16:20;
Acts 10:17; 12:13; in Acts 12:14 it appears to mean the actual gate to be opened);
(b) the gate of a city (Acts 14:13, perhaps temple-portals) and, in particular, the
gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12 f., 21, 25; 22:14). D. Hill
| Ob pa | Ot pa (thyra), door, entrance.
cL In classical Greek thyra denotes a house-door and occasionally the house itself,
expressing the whole by the part. The phrase “‘at the door(s)’’ may be used to
indicate nearness of place or time: to be “‘at the door’ of a king or other influential
person means to be paying court to, or seeking benefit from him. The noun can also
be used, in a general sense, for any entrance, literal or metaphorical.
oT In the LXX thyra often translates: (a) petah which denotes an opening, dogrway
or gate; and (b) delet which denotes a house-door, a gate, and figuratively, any
aperture (e.g. an animal’s jaws, human lips).
NT 1. Literal Meaning. In the NT thyra is used to mean: (a) the door of a house or
room (Matt. 6:6; 25:10; Mk. 1:33; 2:2; 11:4; Lk. 11:7; Jn. 18:16; 20:19;
Acts 5:9; 12:13); (b) the door of the temple (Acts 3:2; 21:30); (c) prison doors
(Acts 5:19, 23; 12:6; 16:26 f.) which miraculously open to liberate apostles: the
motif — which may reflect the developing use of the theme in the biographies of
heroic figures in antiquity — affirms that the progress of the gospel cannot be
hindered by imprisonment or bonds; (d) the entrance to a cave-tomb (Matt. 27:60;
Mk. 16:3); (e) the opening in a stone enclosure (Jn. 10:1 f.).
2. Figurative Use. (a) The phrase “‘before”’ or “‘at the door(s)’’ indicates nearness
in time or place (Matt. 24:33; Mk. 13:29; Acts 5:9; Jas. 5:9).
(b) The image of the open door denotes the provision of opportunity. This usage,
which has parallels only in Rabbinic literature (cf. SB III 631; and TDNT III 174), is
found in missionary contexts. God opens a door for the missionary (for the Word,
in Col. 4:3) by giving him a field in which to work (1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Rev.
30
GATE/GATHER
3:8 (?)) and he opens a door of faith to Gentiles by giving them the possibility of
believing in Christ (Acts 14:27).
(c) The opposite figure, the closed door (Matt. 25:10; Lk. 13:25; Rev. 3:7)
carries the sense of judgment. The narrow door in Lk. 13:24 (cf. Matt. 7:13 f.
where pylé is used in a different context) denotes the entrance into the eschatolo-
gical -> kingdom of God, and the shutting of that door indicates irrevocable loss
of an opportunity. According to Rev. 3:8, the exalted Christ alone has the authority
to grant access to the eschatological realm. Rev. 3:20 is best understood in an
eschatological setting: the returning Saviour seeks fellowship with the disciple in a
festal meal; the door is opened by obedience and faith. The NT only once expressly
refers to the door of heaven (Rev. 4:1), though the figure — reflecting an ancient
oriental view of the world — probably underlies other passages which speak of the
opening and closing of heaven (Lk. 4:25; Rev. 11:6).
(d) The “I am the door” sayings in Jn. 10:7, 9. If, as seems probable, the more
difficult reading “‘door’’ (and not “‘shepherd’’, so p> and Sah.) is the correct one
in v. 7, and if that image is interpreted in terms of vv. 1-3, then the sense is that
Jesus is the gate to the sheep, the door whereby the genuine shepherd approaches
the flock. In v. 9 the image is that of the gate through which the sheep go in and
out, i.e. that Jesus is the gate for the sheep to go into the fold, the gate leading to
salvation and life (cf. Jn. 14:6), an idea which may be indebted to a messianic
interpretation of Ps. 118:20. The image of Jesus as the gate to salvation appears
early in patristic exegesis (Ign., Phil. 9:1; Hermas, Sim. 9, 12, 3 f.). It is not likely
that v. 9 gives expression to a Johannine revelation-formula: it is rather a pointer
to the interpretation of the figure in the opening verses. We need not suppose that
v. 7 and v. 9 are drawn from different sources or that one is supplemental to the
other. They are two explanations of Jesus as the gate. The only unity in the dis-
course of Jn. 10 is christological: Jesus draws to himself every image which the
picture of sheep, shepherd and sheepfold suggests. (For other “‘I am” sayings > I
Am.; — also Open). D. Gill
(a). Arndt, 366, 736; E. F. F. Bishop, ““The Door of the Sheep -— Jn. x. 7-9’, ExpT 71, 1959-60,
307 ff.; R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, I-XII, 1966, 385 f.; O. Cullmann, Peter:
Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1962?; J. Jeremias, thyra, TDNT III 173-80; and pylé, TDNT VI 921-28;
P. W. Meyer, “‘A Note on John 10:1-18”, JBL 75, 1956, 232-35; J. A. T. Robinson, ‘““The Parable
of the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-5)”, ZNW 46, 1955, 233-40 (reprinted in Twelve New Testament
Studies, 1962, 67-75).
(b). E. Fascher, “‘Ich bin die Tir: eine Studie zu Joh. 10, 1-18”, Deutsche Theologie 9, 1942, 34—57,
118-35.
Gather, Scatter
[ody aovvayo (synago), gather; éxiovvdyw (episynago), gather
together; avAAéyw (syllegé), gather up; tpvydw (trygad),
gather in; ovotpé¢m (systrephd), gather together; G@Opoitw (athroizo), gather
together; avva@poilaw (synathroizo), gather together; éxiavvaywyn (episynagége),
gathering together; éza@poifopal (epathroizomai), be gathered even more.
cL In secular Greek synago is used of bringing together, collecting or convening
(Homer, Herodotus). It appears in a hostile sense of joining battle (/liad). It can
31
GATHER
refer to uniting in marriage (Aeschylus), or to concluding from premises (Aristotle).
Sometimes it speaks of gathering together stores or crops (Xenophon).
oT In the LXX synago-is employed about 350 times, and stands chiefly for the
Heb. asap. It is used of collecting things, especially fruits (Exod. 23:10; Lev.
25:3, 20; Isa. 17:5), but also ears of grain (Ruth 2:7), quails (Num. 11:32),
money (2 Ki. 22:4; 2 Chr. 24:11), and the ashes of a red heifer (Num. 19:9).
More importantly, the verb may refer to the gathering together of persons such as
men, people, nations, armies (Exod. 3:16; 4:29; Num. 11:16; 21:16, 23; 2 Sam.
10:17; 12:29). It is also used of being gathered to one’s people in Sheol (2 Kt.
22:20; 2 Chr. 34:29[28]). Other passages speak of the gathering of the dead slain
in battle for the purpose of burial (Jer. 9:22[21]; Ezek. 29:5).
The verb gabas also means to gather, and is used of collecting grain (Gen. 41 :35,
48), booty (Deut. 13:16[17]), money (2 Chr. 24:5), birds (Isa. 34:15,[16]) and
beasts (Ezek. 39:17). In the passive it frequently refers to the assembling of persons
(Gen. 49:2; Isa. 45:20; 48:14; 49:18; 60:4; 2 Chr. 20:4). In the intensive form
it is used of gathering grapes (Isa. 62:9), and of assembling people (Deut. 30:3, 4;
Jer. 31[38]:10), particularly of God recalling and assembling the exiles (Isa. 40:11;
43:5; 56:8). Reference is made to gathering the nations for judgment (Mic. 4:12; |
Isa. 66:18), and to Yahweh’s gathering his dispersed people, sometimes under the -
figure of a flock (Mic. 2:12[11]; 4:6). |
NT In the NT synago appears 59 times (24 in Matt., 5 in Mk., 6in Lk., 7 in Jn., 11
in Acts, 5 in Rev. and once in Paul). In Matt. gathering refers to people (crowds,
13:2; wedding guests, 22:10), or things (birds, 6:26; fish, 13:47; vultures, 24:28).
It is contrasted with — skorpizo (scatter) in connection with the mission of the |
church (12:30; 25:24, 26). There are frequent references to the assembling of the ~
religious leaders (2:4; 22:34, 41; 26:3, 57; 27:17; 27:62; 28:12), and one reference |
to the whole Roman cohort gathering i in the Praetorium at the crucifixion (27:27).
The nations will be gathered together at the last judgment (25:32), and the messiah |
will gather the wheat into his barn (3:12; cf. 13:30, where the reapers are the angels —
who are sent by the Son of man). Wherever several believers gather in Christ’s
name, he will be in the midst (18:20). In 25:35, 38, 43 synagoé means invite in,
receive as a guest.
Lk. notes the gathering of the chief priests and scribes to condemn Jesus (22: 66),
the selfish collecting of material things (12:17, 18), and the prodigal’s reckless |
selling of his goods (15:13). On the other hand, he recognizes that the messiah will —
gather the elect (3:17), and cites Jesus’ principle that ““he who does not gather with —
me scatters” (11:23).
In Jn. the fragments from the feeding of the five thousand are gathered up (6: 2. :
13). Christian workers gather fruit unto life eternal (4:36), and Christ’s mission is |
to gather into one the children of God scattered abroad (11:52). Fruitless branches,
however, are gathered and burned (15:6). Jesus often gathers his disciples to
Gethsemane (18:2), and the chief priests and Pharisees gather or convene a council |
(11:47). !
In Acts there are references to the church gathering for prayer (4:31), instruction |
(11:26), information (14:27; 15:30), consultation (15:6) and the breaking of bread |
(20:7, 8). The Jewish religious leaders assemble (4:5); so do Herod and Pilate |
32
GATHER
(4:26, 27). In Pisidian Antioch practically the whole city gathers to hear the word
of God (13:44).
The only instance of synago in Paul occurs in 1 Cor. 5:4 where believers assemble
to deal with a case of incest requiring excommunication (— Destroy, art. olethros
NT 3).
In Rev. we read of gathering for the great eschatological battle (16:14, 16; 19:19;
20:8) and for the great supper of God (19:17).
episynago is used in Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37; Lk. 13:34), in
eschatological passages speaking of the gathering of the elect (Mk. 13:27; Matt.
24:31), and in connection with crowds gathering about Jesus (Mk. 1:33; Lk. 12:1).
In Lk. 17:37 episynago is used in a warning: “‘As surely as vultures find the carcass,
so surely will divine judgement come; therefore always be ready!” (Oxford Anno-
tated Bible, 1271; — Bird nT).
The verb sylleg6é is utilized for collecting grapes (Matt. 7:16; Lk. 6:44), good
fish (Matt. 13:48), and of gathering up the tares for destruction (Matt. 13:28, 29,
30, 40, 41).
trygad appears as a stylistic variation for sy/leg6 in Lk. 6:44. In Rev. 14:18, 19
it speaks of gathering the clusters of the vine where the wine press of God’s wrath is
in view.
Several other words refer to gathering together (cf. Latin congregare), but are
used sparingly: (1) systrepho in Acts 28:3, of Paul’s gathering a bundle of sticks;
(2) athroizo in Lk. 24:33, of the eleven apostles and others gathered together in
Jerusalem ; (3) synathroizé in Acts 12:12, of the believers assembled in the home of
John Mark’s mother; (4) epathroizomai in Lk. 11:29 of crowds gathered.
The noun episynagogé in 2 Thess. 2:1 refers to the “gathering together’ of
believers to Christ at the Parousia (cf. Latin congregatio). A. A. Trites
| oxopnito | okopnica@ (skorpizo), scatter, disperse, distribute;
Ohne Olaokopnicw@ (diaskorpizo), scatter, disperse, waste;
diakt@ (dialyé), break up, dissolve, disperse; d1acneipw (diaspeiro), scatter;
dlacno pa (diaspora), dispersion.
CL The verb skorpizo is probably adopted from the Macedonian dialect about the
time of Alexander. It means scatter, disperse. Examples tend to be late: Heca-
taeus in Phrynichus (p. 218); Strabo 4, 4, 6; Pseudo-Lucian, Asinus 32; Aelianus,
Varia Historia 13, 45; Josephus, Ant. 16, 10. diaskorpizd also means scatter,
disperse. It appears in Aelianus, Varia Historia 13, 46; Polybius 1, 47, 4; 27, 2,
10; and Josephus, Ant. 8, 404. diaspeiro speaks of scattering (e.g., Sophocles and
Herodotus). In the Christian era it is sometimes used in the passive of churches
(cf. Lucian, Toxaris 33; Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 35, 253; Josephus, Ant. 7,
244; 12, 278). dialyo, which generally means break up, dissolve, can be used of the
dispersing of a crowd (Herodotus 8, 11; Josephus, Ant. 20, 124).
oT In the LXX diaspeir6é appears approximately 60 times, diaskorpizoé around 50,
skorpizo about 14 and dialyé about a dozen times. These represent quite a
number of Hebrew verbs, the chief of which are pts, ndpas and zarah. The first of
these verbs is used generally intransitively of those who disperse themselves and are
33
GATHER
scattered; e.g., a people (Gen. 11:4; Num. 10:35; 1 Sam. 11:11; 14:34; Ps. 68:1
[2]; Ezek. 46:18) or a flock (Ezek. 34:5; Zech. 13:7). Similarly, ndpas is used
reflexively of a people dispersing themselves and being scattered (1 Sam. 13:11;
Isa. 33:3; cf. Gen. 9:19) as well as transitively of dashing or shattering a people
(Jer. 13:14; 51[28]: 23).
The verb zardh means to scatter, cast loosely about, spread (e.g., Exod. 32:20;
Num. 17:2[16:37]; Mal. 2:3). It can mean to winnow, that is, disperse by casting
up and scattering in the wind (Isa. 30:24; Jer. 4:11; Ruth 3:2). At times it speaks
of the routing of enemies (Jer. 15:7; Isa. 41:16; Ezek. 5:2), or the dispersing of the
nations (Lev. 26:33; Ezek. 5:10; 6:5; 30:26).
NI skorpizo occurs only 5 times in the NT, once in connection with the persecution
of Christians (Jn. 16:32) and once in the pastoral allegory of Jn. 10, where the
“‘wolf snatches the sheep and scatters them”’ (Jn. 10:12). Both Matt. and Lk. draw
attention to the missionary principle enunciated by Jesus: “‘He who is not with me
is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters’”’ (Matt. 12:30 = Lk.
11:23). Jesus here takes the theme of gathering and scattering whichis applied in
the OT to the people of God (Isa. 40:11; 49:6; Ezek. 34:13, 16) and applies it to
his own significance in the end-time. The comparable inverted form of the saying,
“he that is not against us is for us’? (Mk. 9:40; Lk. 9:50) occurs in the context of
casting out demons. “‘But they are not contradictory, if the one was spoken to the
indifferent about themselves, and the other to the disciples about someone else”’
(A. H. McNeile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1915, 177; cf. D. Hill, The
Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 217). Paul uses the verb once in a quotation from Ps.
112:9 when he is advocating charity and benevolence (2 Cor. 9:9).
diaskorpizo (9 times in NT) refers on occasion to the squandering of resources,
either one’s own or those entrusted to him by another (Lk. 15:13; 16:1). The verb
also highlights the persecution and dispersion of the messianic community, for the
“‘shepherd”’ will be smitten and the “‘sheep” scattered (Mk. 14:27; Matt. 26:31;
cf. Zech. 13:7). Luke uses it in the Magnificat to express Mary’s confidence in
God’s ability to turn tables on the lofty (Lk. 1:51). A striking instance of the
scattering of the proud appears in the case of Judas the Galilean, whose followers
are dispersed when he is discredited as a messianic pretender (Acts 5:37). Matthew
twice contrasts “‘scattering’” and “‘gathering’”’ in an argumentum ad hominem in-
volving sowing and reaping (Matt. 25:24, 26). John sees the mission of Jesus
embracing Gentiles as well as Jews, in order that he might “‘gather into one the
children of God who were scattered abroad” (Jn. 11:52).
The verb dialy6 appears only once in the NT when Gamaliel draws attention to
the futility of the revolt led by Theudas and the subsequent dispersal of his followers
(Acts 5:36).
The verb diaspeiro is used 3 times of the dispersion of the early Christians
through persecution (Acts 8:1; 11:19). The beneficent result of such circumstances
was the proclamation of the Christian message in new areas; the persecution paved
the way for missionary advance. It is not surprising, then, to find an epistle directed
to ““God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1). The word diaspora also appears
in Jas. 1:1 of “the Twelve Tribes dispersed throughout the world’, while the
34
GATHER/GENERATION
customary usage of the LXX is maintained in Jn. 7:35, where it is atechnical term for
the “‘dispersion of the Jews among the Gentiles” (cf. Deut. 30:4; Ps. 146[147]:2).
A. A. Trites
—> Foreign, —> Seed, Harvest
(a). Arndt, 187, 789 f.;S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, I-XV, 1952-732;
BDB, 62 f., 867 f.; J. Bright, A History of Israel, 19727; M. Grant, The Jews in the Roman World,
1973; T. Nicol, ““Dispersion’’, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. J. Orr, II 855-59;
K. L. Schmidt, diaspora, TDNT II 98-104; W. L. Walker, ‘‘Gather’’, International Standard Bible
Encyclopaedia, WI 1177f. On the dispersion of the Jews generally see W. Forster, Palestinian
Judaism in New Testament Times, 1964; F. C. Grant, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament,
1960; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, III, 1975; Moore, Judaism, I-II1; T. Reinach, “‘Dias-
pora”’, JE IV 559-74; S. Safrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik, eds., The Jewish
People in the First Century, I, 1974; J. A. Sanders, “‘Dispersion’”’, /DB I 854 ff.; Schiirer, J-II;
F. Zweig, “Israel and the Diaspora’’, Judaism 7, 1958, 147—SO.
(b). A. Causse, Les Dispersés d’Israél, 1929; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain, 1914; K. G.
Kuhn, “Die inneren Griinde der jiidischen Ausbreitung”, Deutsche Theologie 2, 1935, 9-17; K.
Miller, ed., Die Aktion Jesu und die Reaktion der Kirche, 1972.
Generation
; veved (genea), generation, family, clan, race, age;
yeveadoyia (genealogia), genealogy, family tree;
yeveadoyém (genealoged), trace descent; ayeveaddyytoc (agenealogétos), without
genealogy.
CL & OT genea, derived from the root gen-, means birth, also (noble) descent, then
descendants, family, race (i.e., those bound together by a common origin).
Those born at the same time constitute a generation (“three generations of men are
a hundred years’’, Hdt. 2, 142). Associated with this is the meaning: the body of
one’s contemporaries, an age. In the LXX genea is almost always the translation of
dor and means generation, in which case the whole history of Israel is often re-
garded as a work of God extending through many generations (“from generation
to generation’, “from all generations’).
The noun genos, formed from the same stem and related to the verb ginomai
(— Birth), is frequently translated by race (except where it corresponds to the
Hebrew min = “kind” in Gen. 1). Both in the LXX and in the NT its prime mean-
ing is nation, people or tribe, and therefore is discussed under — people.
NT genea occurs 43 times in the NT, mainly in the Gospels and Acts; on the other
hand its compounds are found only rarely: genealogeomai occurs once, genea-
logia twice, agenealogétos once.
1. The meaning of the word in the NT comes from the idea of historical se-
quence referred to above. It occurs 4 times in Matt. 1:17, in the context of Christ’s
genealogy. The remote past is denoted — as in OT and late Jewish usage — by the
phrase apo geneon, from (all) generations (Col. 1:26; Acts 15:21). Similarly the
unending future is expressed by eis geneas kai geneas, “‘to all generations”’ (lit. “to
generations and generations”) (Lk. 1:50; 1:48; Eph. 3:21). Acts 13:36 refers to
David’s generation, and Acts 14:16; Eph. 3:5 to earlier generations. genealogia
35
GENERATION
occurs in the NT only in 1 Tim. 1:4 and Titus 3:9, and alludes specifically to the
practice of searching back through one’s family tree in order to establish ancestry.
On any straightforward exegesis, those doing this can only have been Jews who,
starting out from OT and other genealogies, were propagating all kinds of “Jewish
myths’’, quite probably pre-Christian gnostic speculations. But it is also possible
that the Ebionites were using similar arguments to attack the doctrine of the
miraculous birth of Jesus which was circulating in the Christian church (cf. the
genealogies in Matt. 1 and Lk. 3). (On the genealogies of Jesus — Son.)
In Gen. 14 - Melchizedek is introduced without any such statement as is usual
elsewhere in the OT regarding a person’s ancestry (“‘son of ...’’). For that reason
he is described in Heb. 7:3 as agenealogétos, and in 7:6 as mé genealogoumenos, 1.€.
he can have had no natural ancestry like others. The author of Heb. is certainly
not attempting to call in question indirectly the true humanity of Jesus. For him
this is bound up with his true divinity.
2. Almost all the remaining NT genea-passages speak of ‘‘this generation” (hé
genea hauté). This construction in Greek, with the demonstrative regularly follow-
ing its noun, is clearly the equivalent of haddér hazzeh. It is interesting that the OT
does not know this stereotyped phrase in its NT sense, though Ps. 12:7 comes very
Close to it (cf. Gen. 7:1; Exod. 1:6; Deut. 1:35). In these passages the demonstra-
tive has a pejorative character, 1.€. the reference is to a class of people who in this
world stand over against the children of light and are further described as faithless
(Mk. 9:19), faithless and perverse (Matt. 17:17), adulterous (Mk. 8:38), evil and
adulterous (Matt. 12:39), evil (Lk. 11:29), crooked (Acts 2:40), crooked and
perverse (Phil. 2:15). The Song of Moses in Deut. 32 (vv. 5 and 20) seems here to
have had a certain influence on the wording. In these passages the temporal,
“genealogical” element is completely absent. The emphasis lies entirely on the sin-
fulness of this class, this type of people.
3. In Jesus’ discourse about the future the phrase clearly bears this second
meaning: Mk. 13:30; Matt. 24:34; Lk. 21:32. Indeed, in every other NT passage
where hauté forms part of this phrase, it has the same pejorative character. But
since the discourse refers to this genea “‘passing away’’, the temporal, genealogical
element is also present, though of secondary importance. By using this phrase,
Jesus appears to set a time limit for certain events, and the question then is: Which
events are they? There are various conflicting views.
(a) Only a comprehensive analysis of Mk. 13 and its parallels can clarify the
situation, but the following brief observations may be made. Mk. 13:1—36 with its
600 words is the most extensive complete section within the basic synoptic tradition
(‘triplex traditio marciana”’, de Solages). Like Mk. 4, it is an important piece of
early Christian didaché (teaching); indeed the Gospel of Mk. as a whole bears the
marks not of kérygma (proclamation) but of didaché. (Note the use in Mk. of the
word-group didaskein, didaché,; didaskalos; —> teaching, and in particular Mk. 1:22,
27; 4:1, 2; 11:18; 12:38.) In Mk. 13:1-4 a purely didactic situation is outlined as
the Sitz im Leben. Attempts have been made, on the basis of literary criticism, to
exclude a greater or lesser portion of Mk. 13:1—36 as being of non-Marcan origin.
Such attempts have failed, however, since both in terms of word-frequency and of
grammar the whole passage is thoroughly Marcan in character. It is very significant
that a succession of recent investigators have made their incisions at totally different
36
GENERATION
places. To call the whole chapter (or part of it) ““apocalyptic’’ can only be mislead-
ing, for there is a complete absence of apocalyptic features: history written as
prophecy, descriptions of heaven, astronomical speculations, symbolism based on
animals or colours or numbers, visions, heavenly messages brought by angels,
pseudonymity, precise expressions of time, portrayal of conditions in heaven or
hell. Moreover, where isolated ideas or phrases are borrowed from apocalyptic,
these are re-moulded in typically non-apocalyptic, indeed anti-apocalyptic fashion.
The imperatives which dominate the whole chapter are essentially non-apocalyptic.
Many modern form-critics see the passage as a hortatory discourse of early
Christian didaché which originated as separate elements but was put together in its
present form by the author and by the church tradition available to him. In the
context of the whole gospel it is clearly presented as a farewell discourse. This type
of address occurs frequently in the literature of pre-Christian times and of late
Judaism, as well as in the rest of the NT. Its essential and recurring features are
warnings of future apostasy and persecution, the promise of coming redemption
and the exhortation to watchfulness.
(b) It is precisely these features that are present in Mk. 13 and its parallels,
coupled with a tradition according to which Jesus announces the coming destruc-
tion of —> Jerusalem (1-4; 14-20). The Lucan parallel to Mk. 13:14—20 (Lk. 21:20-
24) shows clearly enough how Lk. understood Mk.’s cryptic language, but as Dodd,
Michaelis and others have shown, this by no means implies that Lk. was prophesy-
ing after the event. Such a conclusion is suggested only by a theological inter-
pretation, which sees Jerusalem as the embodiment of the people of Israel, whose
hearts God had hardened in judgment, whilst the “times of the Gentiles” (kairoi
ethnon), in the sense of the “‘times when salvation comes to the Gentiles’, had
already begun (cf. Acts 28:24-28; Rom. 11:25, 26). These times cannot be calcu-
lated in advance (Lk. 17:20 f.). But they will soon come to an end with the coming
of the —- kingdom of God, the — Son of man, and the — Day of the Lord. (Lk.
18:8 and 21: 34-36 suggest that Lk. expected that the end may come at any moment
within his own lifetime.) Whilst in Lk. the “‘end”’ of Jerusalem and the “end of the
world” are clearly separated from one another, Matt. has closely linked the two
together. The sentence pronounced upon Jerusalem was available both to him and
to Lk. in the logia source (Matt. 23:37-39 = Lk. 13:34, 35) and in the special
material (Matt. 22:7; Lk. 19:41-44; 23:28-32). This close association in Matt. 1s
shown by the form of the question in 24:3, and with particular clarity by the
expression “immediately” in 24:29 (eutheds), and in general by the entirely new
version of the discourse which he gives. The expression synteleisthai in Mk. 13:4
is not by any means a technical term of apocalyptic as has been asserted (Acts
21:27 being quoted in support!), and the adverbial phrase of time in Mk. 13:24
(“but in those days after that tribulation’’) is linguistically semitic and ambiguous,
telling us very little. Mk. occupies, so to speak, a middle position, as indeed he does
in textual matters throughout. (Cf. de Solages’ conclusive arguments; see biblio-
graphy below.)
Only by such considerations can the word in Mk. 13:30 and its parallels be
explained. In Matt. it has the sense of this generation, and according to the first
evangelist, Jesus expected the end of this age (— Time, art. aidn) to occur in
connection with the judgment on Jerusalem at the end of that first generation (see
37
GENERATION
Mk. 9:1 and Matt. 16:18). But in view of the happenings of A.p. 70 and their
theological relation to the preaching of Paul, Lk. understood genea as a class of
people, perhaps even as Israel. Since the special material and the logia source do
not link the judgment on Jerusalem and the end of the world, and since the text
of Mk. 13 in general (especially vv. 13 and 24) has an indefinite and open ring, we
must conclude that in this regard Jesus expressed himself in an ambiguous manner.
The evangelists, however, were not copyists, but witnesses who, led by the Spirit,
testified to the word they had heard and brought it to bear upon their own times.
Acts 8:33 is a literal rendering of Isa. 53:8. The passage is interpreted christo-
logically, but the precise interpretation presents difficulties. It is fairly certain that
“‘seneration” is used in its genealogical sense. However, E. Haenchen thinks that
it may be understood as referring to “‘spiritual descendants’’. The sentence would
then mean: ““The number of his disciples will grow incalculably, because he has
become the Exalted” (The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 312). R. Morgenthaler
4. The events referred to in Mk. 13:30 par. Matt. 24:34 and Lk. 21:32 have
generally been taken to refer to cosmic events associated with the second coming
of Christ. (For the survey of views see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future:
An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13, with
Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory, 1954; cf. the same author’s A
Commentary on Mark Thirteen, 1957.) But if these events were expected within
the first generation of Christians (and “generation” is the most probable transla-
tion of genea), either Jesus or the evangelists were mistaken. The failure of events
to materialize has been put down to a postponement of the catastrophe and to a
telescoping of events, comparable with seeing a mountain range at a distance. The
perspective makes the mountains appear to stand close together, and indeed rela-
tively speaking they do stand close together. However, there is an alternative inter-
pretation of the passage which points out that insufficient attention has been paid
to the prophetic language of the passage as a whole.
The imagery of cosmic phenomena is used in the OT to describe this-worldly
events and, in particular, historical acts of judgment. The following passages are
significant, not least because of their affinities with the present context: Isa. 13:10
(predicting doom on Babylon); Isa. 34:4 (referring to “all the nations’, but
especially to Edom); Ezek. 32:7 (concerning Egypt); Amos 8:9 (the Northern
Kingdom of Israel); Joel 2:10 (Judah). The cosmic imagery draws attention to the
divine dimension of the event in which the judgment of God is enacted. The use of
Joel 2: 28-32 in Acts 2:15—21 provides an instance of the way in which such pro-
phetic cosmic imagery is applied to historical events in the present (cf. also Lk.
10:18; Jn. 12:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:10 ff.; Rev. 6:12-17; 18:1). Other OT
passages relevant to the interpretation of the present context are Isa. 19:1; 27:13;
Dn. 7:13; Deut. 30:4; Zech. 2:6; 12:10-14; Mal. 3:1. In view of this, Mk. 13:24—
30 may be interpreted as a prophecy of judgment on Israel in which the — Son of
man will be vindicated. Such a judgment took place with the destruction of Jeru-
salem, the desecration of the -- Temple and the scattering of Israel — all of which
happened within the lifetime of “‘this generation.” The disintegration of Israel as
the people of God coincides with the inauguration of the — kingdom of the Son of
man. Such an interpretation fits the preceding discourse and the introductory
38
GENERATION/GIFT
remarks of the disciples (Mk. 13:1 ff. par.). It would not, however, pre-empt the
—> judgment of mankind in general. (See further J. Marcellus Kik, Matthew XXIV:
An Exposition, 1948; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971, 227-39.)
—> Present: The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT C. Brown
(a). E. L. Abel, “The Genealogies of Jesus Ho cuRIsTos”’, NTS 20, 1973-74, 203-10; G. R. Beasley-
Murray, Jesus and the Future: An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse,
Mark 13, with Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory, 1954; and A Commentary on
Mark Thirteen, 1957; F. Biichsel, genea etc., TDNT I 662-65; C. H. Dodd, “‘The Fall of Jerusalem
and the ‘Abomination of Desolation’ ’’, Journal of Roman Studies, 1947, reprinted in More New
Testament Studies, 1968, 69-83; L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the
Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, 1970; T. F. Glasson, His Appearing and His Kingdom:
The Christian Hope in the Light of its History, 1953; M.D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical
Genealogies: With Special Reference to the Setting of Genealogies of Jesus, Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series 8, 1969; W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and
a New Time, 1974; J. M. Kik, Matthew XXIV: An Exposition, 1948, reissued in An Eschatology
of Victory, 1971; W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus,
19617; A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament, 1966; G. Neville, The Advent Hope: A
Study of the Content of Mark XIII, 1961; B. de Solages, A Greek Synopsis of the Gospels, 1959;
W. Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life: A Study in the Synoptic Gospels, 1959; R. R. Wilson, ‘““The
Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research”, JBL 94, 1975, 169-89.
(b). G. Bolsinger, ‘“Die Ahnenreihe Christi nach Matthaus und Lukas’, Buk 12, 1957, 112 ff.;
F. Busch, Zum Verstandnis der synoptischen Eschatologie, Mk. 13 neu untersucht, 1938; J. Conrad,
Die junge Generation im Alten Testament, AzTh 1/40, 1970; E. Grasser, Das Problem der Parusiever-
zégerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte, 1957; G. Harder, ‘““Das
eschatologische Geschichtsbild der sogenannten kleine Apokalypse Mk. 13”, ThV, 1952, 71 ff.;
M. Meinertz, “‘ “Dieses Geschlecht’ im Neuen Testament”, BZ 1, 1957, 283 ff.; A. Pfleiderer, ““Uber
die Komposition der eschatologischen Rede Mt. 24:4 ff.”, Jahrbuch fiir Deutsche Theologie, 1868;
A. Piganiol, Observation sur la Date del’ Apocalypse synoptique, 1924; E. des Places, “‘Ipsius enim
genus sumus (Act. 17, 28)’, Biblica 43, 1962, 388 ff.; G. C. B. Pinjer, ‘“Die Wiederkunftsreden
Jesu”, ZWT 2, 1878, 153-208; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 1929, 554; E. F. Strémer,
Die grosse Zukunftsrede des Herrn nach Matthaus, 24, 1922.
Gift, Pledge, Corban
A gift (déron and related words) is qualified by the reason for which it is given and
the end which it is intended to serve. Its characteristic feature is not the act of
giving (diddmi), but the intention behind it. This can be to fulfil an obligation or
cancel a debt. But a gift may also be a present given without ulterior motive.
When man gives something to God, his gift has the character of an offering (—
Sacrifice). But in the NT the theological emphasis lies, significantly, on the idea of
gift as a present from God to man, In this connection — Jesus Christ and his
redeeming work appear as the one great fundamental gift of God. There is also the
gift of the Holy — Spirit with his various charismata (— Grace). The former gives
man union and — fellowship with Christ; the latter equips him for service arising
from this fellowship. The arrabon, first instalment, earnest, is a more specific idea,
denoting the pledge which guarantees fulfilment (— Fullness) of the — promise.
re? 7. | appapayv (arrabén), first instalment, down payment,
| appapov | deposit, pledge, earnest.
CL & oT The Gk. word arrabon (borrowed from the Semitic, cf. Heb. ‘érabén) is a
legal concept from the language of business and trade. It is found only rarely
39
GIFT
(Isaeus, Aristotle and later grammarians such as Suidas) and means: (1) an instal-
ment, with which a man secures a legal claim upon a thing as yet unpaid for; (2) an
earnest, an advance payment, by which a contract becomes valid in law; (3) in one
passage (Gen. 38:17 ff.) a pledge. In each case it is a matter of payment by which
the person concerned undertakes to give further payment to the recipient (Arndt,
109). A metaphorical use is also possible (e.g. skilfulness as an arrabén of life,
Antiphon, Frag. 123, 6).
NT In all three passages where the word occurs in the NT the Holy — Spirit is
referred to.
1. Eph. 1:14 interprets the other two passages: the Spirit as the present earnest
of our future — inheritance guarantees our complete, final salvation, i.e. eternal
communion with God. This statement, as also 2 Cor. 1:22, is probably associated
with — baptism (— Seal). In the sealing of the believer, the Holy Spirit is given to
the human — heart (kardia) as an earnest. The future reality represented by the
earnest of the Spirit appears in 2 Cor. 5:5 as the “house’’ expected from heaven,
which will one day replace the present “‘tent”’, our earthly body. Thus in Paul the
Spirit is not the earnest of a soul freed from its earthly body, but of a new existence
in an immortal body (heavenly garment; — Clothe).
2. Similarly Rom. 8:23 speaks of “‘the first fruits [aparché] of the Spirit”. Here
the genitive “of the Spirit’? explains the meaning of aparché (gift of firstfruits;
—> Sacrifice; cf. 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). E. Schweizer holds that aparché, like arrabon,
does not mean a preliminary participation in the Spirit. The present reality of the
Spirit is a sign and pledge of that which is to come (7TDNT VI 422). In Polycarp
8:1 Jesus Christ is referred to as arrabon. But the NT avoids this and speaks of
him only as engyos (surety; — Covenant).
In all three NT passages, however, the arrabén should not be understood to
imply that, in giving the earnest of the Spirit, God is legally our debtor. Even the
instalment of the Spirit remains a free, undeserved gift of God to men.
O. Becker
| 0@ pov (doron), gift, present; dwped (dorea), gift; dwpedv
Es (dorean), as a present, gratis; dwpéopal (doreomai), give,
present; d@pnyua (doréma), present; did@ (didomi), give, grant; dda (doma),
gift; =poapopa (prosphora), presentation, offering, gift. |
| O@ pov
CL doron (found already in Mycenean Greek) is from the same root as didomi.
metadidomi means to give a share in; dosis and doma, gift, are infrequent. The
derivative vb. doreomai, present, is used in the mid. (originally also in the act.).
Corresponding to it are the Attic noun doréma present, and dorea, present, gift,
bestowal. The acc. of the latter, dérean, is used adverbially in the sense of gratis,
undeservedly, as a present.
In extra-Biblical use, doron (similarly dorea) denotes especially a complimentary
gift. As a gift from the gods (e.g. in Homer), it can also mean dispensation. Brought
by men to the gods, doron denotes a consecrated gift. It can also mean tax, tribute,
or bribe.
40
GIFT
oT 1. The LXX uses doron to render several Hebrew words with the following
principal meanings: (a) generally, a present such as men give to one another
(Gen. 24:53; 32:13, 18 f. and passim); (b) tribute (Jdg. 3:15, 17f. and passim;
Jdg. 5:19 = booty); (c) bribe (Exod. 23:7 f.; Deut. 16:19; 27:25; Ps. 15:5 and
passim; Deut. 10:17 and passim; negatively when the reference is to God; (d) most
frequent is the cultic meaning offering, Heb. gorbdn, especially in Lev. and Num.
(Lev. 1:2 f., 10, 14; 2:1, 4 ff. etc.; Num. 5:15; 6:14, 21 etc.; also for minhdh in Gen.
4:4; for néder in Deut. 12:11 and passim), often with the vb. prospherd, to bring,
to offer (prosphora, offering; the act of offering); (e) a gift brought to God in
recognition of his greatness and power (by kings, Pss. 68:30; 72:10; by peoples,
Isa. 18:7, cf. Ps. 68:32 etc.); (f) a gift from God (Gen. 30:20).
doron rarely appears in late Jewish literature. ddrema appears in the LXX only
once, in the Apocrypha (Sir. 31[34]:18).
2. ddreomai, rare in the LXX, stands for 3 Hebrew verbs having the sense of
‘giving’: (a) by men to one another (ndtan, Est. 8:1; also Prov. 4:2); (b) by man
to God (gorban, Lev. 7:15 [LXX v. 5]); (c) by God to men (zabad, Gen. 30:20).
Much more frequent is didomi, which as a rule renders the Hebrew naan, to give
(likewise used in this threefold way), but also a large number of other verbs.
3. ddrea occurs frequently in late Jewish literature, but in the canonical books
always in the adverbial acc. form ddrean. It corresponds in meaning to the Heb.
term hinnam: (a) for nothing (without payment, Exod. 21:2, 11; Num. 11:5; 2
Sam. 24:24 and passim; without recompense, Gen. 29:15; Jer. 22:13 and passim);
(b) without cause (1 Sam. 19:5; 25:31; Ps. 35:7 and passim); (c) in vain (Ezek.
6:10; Mal. 1:10).
NT 1. (a) In the NT doron (19 times) stands once for the human gift (Rev. 11:10;
cf. Matt. 7:11 par. Lk. 11:13 doma) and once for the divine gift (Eph. 2:8). For
the latter dérea is found more often (e.g. Jn. 4:10; Acts 2:38; Rom. 5:15, 17; 2 Cor.
9:15; Eph. 4:7; Heb. 6:4). In Rom. 5:16 and Jas. 1:17 doréma is used (in the latter
passage together with dosis). For the rest doron is the offering (e.g. Matt. 5:23 f.;
23:18 f.; Mk. 7:11; Lk. 21:1-4; Heb. 5:1; 8:3 f.; 9:9; 11:4; while in Matt. 2:11
it is the gift of adoration). The occasional combination with prosphero to bring,
offer, underlines the connection with the OT sacrifice system. In this sense doron
is parallel to thysia, offering (— Sacrifice), and prosphora, offering.
(b) didomi (416 times in the NT) is found in all the nuances of presenting, giving,
bestowing, granting, etc., both (4) among men (Matt. 7:lla; Acts 20:35 and
passim; also doreomai Mk. 15:45; and metadidodmi Lk. 3:11; Rom. 1:11; 12:8;
Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 2:8); and (ii) by God (Matt. 7:11b; 1 Jn. 4:13; Rev. 2:7, 17;
cf. also 3:21 and passim; doreomai 2 Pet. 1:3). The meaning to offer also occurs
(Lk. 2:24), while a metaphorical meaning is found in Mk. 10:37; Acts 13:20 and
passim.
(c) dorean (8 times in the NT) has the threefold meaning common in the OT:
(i) gratis, gratuitously, for nothing (Matt. 10:8; Rom. 3:24; 2 Cor. 11:7; 2 Thess.
3:8; Rev. 21:6; 22:17); (i) without cause (Jn. 15:25, OT quotation from Pss.
35:19; 69:4); (iii) in vain (Gal. 2:21).
2. doron and didomi as cultic terms (— Sacrifice) are found in contexts where the
subject-matter is the regular offering (Matt. 5:23 f.; 8:4; Lk. 2:24; in Lk. 21:1, 4
4]
GIFT
with the meaning money-offering). There are also other passages (Mk. 7:11; Matt.
15:5) which emphasize, in line with OT prophecy, that offerings (even in a meta-
phorical sense) are no substitute for obedience to God’s will (cf. Isa. 1:10-17;
Mic. 6:6-8; also Deut. 10:12 f.). The problem of the sacrificial cult is squarely
faced in the Epistle to the Hebrews (5:1 ff.; 8:3 f. and passim), where a contrast
is drawn between the merely temporary OT system with its offerings (ddron and
thysia) made by men, and the final, once-for-all offering of Christ (prosphora and
thysia) (7:26-28; 9:25 ff.; 10:10 ff. and passim; cf. also Eph. 5:2).
3. This opens up the NT teaching that God is a God who gives, and that his
giving is seen supremely in the redeeming work of Christ (~ Redemption).
(a) There are general statements to the effect that God “gave” his > Son (Jn.
3:16) and passages where Jesus as such is referred to as “‘the gift of God’’ (dérea,
Jn. 4:10). The statement that Christ has “given” himself for us, for our sins,
appears as a credal formula in Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6 (for literature on NT credal
formulae — Confess).
(b) In addition there are references which point particularly to Jesus’ death on
the cross: Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45 par.; cf. Jn. 10:15b).
Likewise Lk.’s account of the Last Supper (22:19) speaks of Christ’s body ‘‘given
for you.”
(c) This gives to Christians the assurance of belonging for ever to the — church
of Christ. Jn. in particular sees the basis for this assurance in the fact that the
church has been given to Christ by God (10:28 f.; cf. 17:6 ff.). Moreover, to
belong to this church means to share in the gift of eternal — life (10:28; cf.
3215 ft Le 2g 17s 3):
(d) In Paul the gift-motif is incorporated into his preaching of the free and un-
merited grace of God (N.B. dorean, Rom. 3:24) which declares the sinner justified
“without works’ (— Righteousness; — Grace; — Reconciliation). dérea or doréma —
(Rom. 5:15-17; 2 Cor. 9:15), taken together with charisma, sums up the whole of
God’s saving work of pardon, justification and reconciliation (cf. also Eph. 2:8). |
(e) God is praised as the giver of all good gifts in general (Jas. 1:17; cf. Matt.
7:11b etc.). All who call upon him for his gifts can do so with the utmost confidence —
(Matt. 7:7). Yet the one great gift which he gives to his church is his — Spirit _
(2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; 1 Thess. 4:8; Lk. 11:13; cf. Acts 2:38; 8:17; 10:47; 19:6; also |
the OT quotations in Acts 2:17 f. [Joel 2:28 ff.] and Heb. 8:10 [Jer. 31:33]). In the ©
church, all other ‘‘gifts”’ (usually charisma, —> Grace) are the results of this one gift —
(Rom. 12:3 ff.; 1 Cor. 12:1 ff.; cf. also 2 Pet. 1:3). In the letters of Rev. 2 and 3 the |
gift of eternal life i 1S promised to him who “overcomes” trial and temptation. :
(f) doma, gift, occurs only at Matt. 7:11 (cf. Lk. 4:6); Eph. 4:8 (on the inter- .
pretation of this verse — Heaven, art. anabaino); and Phil. 4:17.
4. The man who has received Christ as a free gift, responds to the twofold
— commandment (Matt. 22:37-40) by a twofold giving:
(a) He gives himself to God (cf. 2 Cor. 8:5 and similar passages). According to |
the NT, this is the only legitimate “‘offering’”’ which can and should be brought by ©
men to God (Rom. 12:1 and passim). It includes the “sacrifices” of word and deed |
(Heb. 13:15 f.; 1 Pet. 2:5), and may mean even the laying down of one’s life for
Christ (Phil. 2: 17). i
42
GIFT
(b) He gives himself to other men, as required by the “new commandment”’
(Jn. 13:34). This shows itself in the first instance within the church, where the
giving should be a reflection of God’s giving. To give simply and without ulterior
motives (Rom. 12:8) is the way in which God gives (Jas. 1:5). See also 2 Cor. 9:7
on God’s love for the cheerful giver (dotés, found only here in the NT); Mk. 12:41-
44 = Lk. 21:1—-4 (Jesus’ verdict on the poor widow’s gift); and the precepts of the
Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:42; cf. Lk. 6:38). But the Christian, having first
received the gift of the gospel, is concerned to pass this gift on to others. This is
giving in its profoundest sense (Rom. 1:11; 1 Thess. 2:8; cf. Matt. 10:8b).
H. Vorlander
= Kopfav (korban), corban, gift; KopBavac (korbanas),
| xoppav temple treasury.
oT The Gk, word korban is transliterated from the Heb. gorban and denotes a gift
consecrated to God (Lev. 1:2; 22:27; 23:14; Num. 7:25; Ezek. 20:28; 40:43).
Many scholars think that these passages reflect the outlook of post-exilic Judaism.
The offerings mentioned include both sacrifices and gifts.
Later Judaism used the word in a more technical sense. Josephus mentions
those who “‘dedicate themselves to God, as a corban, which denotes what the
Greeks call a gift” (Ant. 4, 73; cf. Ap. 1, 167). Release from the vow could be
obtained by payment of an appropriate sum. Rab. practice was formulated in the
Mishnah in the tractate on Nedarim (Vows), see especially sections 1, 3, 8, 9, 11 and
the developments in the Babylonian Talmud (Ned. 1:4; 2:2; and 3:2). The
rabbis appear to be divided over the extent to which a gift vowed as corban (also
later termed kénam) was binding. The Mishnah indicates that most of them held
that duty to one’s parents constituted grounds for release from a gift vowed to God.
(Ned. 9:1). The Babylonian Talmud attributed this view to the school of Shammai,
whereas that of Hillel took the more rigorist view. ‘“‘If anyone expressly lays such a
corban on his relatives, then they are bound by it and cannot receive anything
from him that is covered by the corban’’ (Ned. 3:2). The context of these pro-
nouncements show that the question was not so much the handing over of certain
things to God but their withdrawal from use by specified persons.
NT The rigorist position which permitted a man to neglect the care of parents on
the grounds that the gift is dedicated to God as corban was denounced by
Jesus according to Mk. 7:11 (The par. in Matt. 15:5 uses doron, gift, offering, in-
stead of the technical term korban.) The act is condemned as an act of hypocrisy
in the words of Isa. 29:13 (cf. Mk. 7:6 f.; Matt. 15:7). The Pharisaic teaching on
this point is characterized as ‘‘tradition’’ which makes void the — “‘word of God”
(Mk. 7:13). The scribes might have claimed the support of Deut. 23:21 ff. and
Num. 30:1 ff. in teaching that vows could not be broken. But they had allowed
obligation to something that was relatively trivial to take precedence over a funda-
mental, humanitarian — command (in this case the Fifth Commandment [Exod.
20:12, par. Deut. 5:16)).
korbanas (Matt. 27:6; cf. Josephus, War 2, 175) denotes the temple treasury in
which everything offered as korban (or the price of its redemption) was collected.
43
GIFT/GLORY
The chief priests declined to put into it Judas’ thirty pieces of silver on the grounds
that they were ‘“‘blood money.” C. Brown
— First, + Fruit, — Grace, Spiritual Gifts
(a). B. Ahern, ‘““The Indwelling Spirit, Pledge of our Inheritance’, CBQ 9, 1947, 179-89; J. Behm,
arrabon, TDNT I 475; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 1967°, 139; F.
Biichsel, diddmi, TDNT II 166-73; J. D. M. Derrett, “KORBAN, HO ESTIN DORON”, NTS 16,
1969-70, 364-68; N. Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in St. Paul, 1957, 17-40; J.
H. A. Hart, ‘Corban’, JOR 19, 1907, 615-50; C. C. Oke, “A Suggestion with Regard to Rom.
8:23”, Interpretation, 2, 1957, 455-60; K. H. Rengstorf, korban, TDNT III 860-66; S. S. Smalley,
“Spiritual Gifts and I Corinthians 12-16”, JBL 87, 1968, 427-33.
(b). SBI 711.
Glory, Honour
Two different Gk. word-groups are represented by the Eng. words glory and honour.
From classical Gk. onwards timé denoted recognition of another’s work by giving
him the position and honours he merited. It is always something given to God or
one’s fellow-man (though not necessarily one’s social superior). doxa is often used
as a synonym, but in the Bible it is a quality belonging to God and is recognized
by man only in response to him. It is more often translated glory. It suggests
something which radiates from the one who has it, leaving an impression behind.
As such, it is in applicable to relationships between men.
| eaC*d 6d&a (doxa), radiance, glory, repute; doéa¢w (doxazo),
_ | opraise, glorify; €vd0géoc¢ (endoxos), honoured, glorious;
évdogatw (endoxazo), honour, glorify; avpvdoédl@ (syndoxazo), glorify together;
Kevodoéocg (kenodoxos), desirous of praise, conceited, boastful; xevodocia
(kenodoxia), desire for praise, conceit, vanity, illusion.
CL This word-group affords one of the clearest examples of change in meaning of
a Gk. word, when it came under the influence of the Bible. The basic meaning
of doxa in secular Gk. is opinion, conjecture. This ranges from the opinion about a
person or thing that I am prepared to defend to the valuation placed on me by
others, i.e. repute, praise.
Accordingly, the noun doxa in secular Gk. means expectation, view, opinion,
conjecture, repute, praise, fame. The vb. doxazé means: think, imagine, suppose,
magnify, praise, extol (~ Think, art. dokeo nT).
oT 1. The concepts of doxa and doxazo were transformed in the LXX. This is
shown, for example, by the fact that the original meaning ‘“‘opinion’’ is not found.
The meanings praise and honour are shared with secular Gk. But whereas doxa is
seldom used for the honour shown to a man (for this timé is employed), it is
frequently used for the honour brought or given to God (cf. e.g. Ps. 29:1; Isa. 42:12).
This usage meant losing contact with secular Gk. The meaning of pomp, power,
' earthly majesty is based on OT (Isa. 17:4; 35:2; Hag. 2:3). But above all, doxa
expresses God’s glory and power (Pss. 24:7 ff.; 29:3; Isa. 42:8). In spite of the
new reference of the words, the general structure of their meaning remains
44
GLORY
unchanged, for in LXX also they are used for appearance, i.e. for the manifestation of
a person, with special stress on the impression this creates on others. This aspect is
essential for our understanding of the concept.
2. Behind this new meaning lies the Heb. OT concept of kabdéd, glory, honour.
The LXX represents this by doxa and gives it essentially the same meaning. When
it is used of God, it does not mean God in his essential nature, but the luminous
manifestation of his person, his glorious revelation of himself. Characteristically,
kabéd is linked with verbs of seeing (Exod. 16:7; 33:18; Isa. 40:5), and appearing
(Exod. 16:10; Deut. 5:24; Isa. 60:1). We may recognize this kabéd in creation
(Ps. 19:1 [MT 19:2]; Isa. 6:3), but it expresses itself above all in salvation history,
i.e. in God’s great acts (Exod. 14:17 f.; Ps. 96:3), and especially in God’s presence
in the sanctuary (Exod. 40:34 f.; 1 Ki. 8:10 f.; Ps. 26:8), which can be conceived
as fire (Lev. 9:23 f.; Ezek. 43:2; Exod. 24:17). In 1 Sam. 4:21 f. the loss of the ark
of God to the Philistines meant that “‘The glory has departed from Israel’’. The
event was reflected in the name Ichabod (ikabéd, where is the glory?). The ark
symbolized the divine presence which could not be borne (1 Sam. 5 f.; cf. Exod.
33:17-23). In the last days a full manifestation of the kabéd was expected. Its
purpose was to bring salvation to Israel (Isa. 60:1 f.; Ezek. 39:21 f.), but also to
convert the nations (Ps. 96:3-9; Zech. 2:5-11 [MT 2:9-15]). This glory is normally
found only in God, though in Ezek. 8:2; 1:7, 13 and Dan. 10:5 f. angelic beings
show some of its characteristics.
3. The inter-testamental period showed a strong interest in the heavenly world.
The concept of glory is not confined, as in the OT, to God’s self-revelation. It is
also applied to the realities of heaven; God, his throne, and the angels. In such
cases glory may be used with a watered-down meaning, as an epithet which may be
applied in the language of liturgy and hymns to almost any concept which is linked
with God. Of importance is the notion that -> Adam in paradise possessed glory
but lost it through the Fall (cf. G. Kittel, 7DNT II 246; SB IV 940 ff., 1138). This
led to the idea that men too could share in the glory (but cf. Exod. 33:17-23;
34: 29-36).
In Qumran it was expected that the elect would “inherit all the glory of Adam”’
(1QH 17:15; cf. CD 3:20). Apocalyptic writings also specially stressed the sharing
of the saved in glory, while the rabbis described salvation rather as the vision of the
glory of God. More nationalistic concepts understood the eschatological revelation
of glory one-sidedly as a glorification of Jerusalem and Israel. Isa. 60:1 ff. was used
as a proof-text (cf. SB IV 894, 960). The nations would be drawn by the visible
manifestation of glory, would stream to Jerusalem and would accept the faith of
Israel.
NT A. 1. doxa is found 165 times in NT, 77 cases being in the Pauline epistles
(including Rom. 16 times; 1 Cor. 12 times; 2 Cor. 19 times), it also figures
prominently in the Petrine letters (1 Pet. 10 times; 2 Pet. 5 times), the Johannine
writings (Jn. 18 times; Rev. 17 times), and Lk. (13 times), though the word-group
is completely lacking in 1, 2 and 3 Jn. John (23 times) is the chief user of doxazo,
found more than 60 times in all. For other forms see A.3.
2. The meaning of doxa and doxazo is a continuation of the LXX usage and the
underlying Heb. (cf. oT 1, 2 above). As a result, the ideas of opinion and conjecture
45
GLORY
are not found. We can separate the various shades of meaning as follows. The
references given are representative instances.
(a) The meanings honour, fame, repute and in the case of the vb. to honour,
praise, and the special uses to seek honour (Jn. 7:18; 8:50; 5:44; | Thess. 2:6) and
to receive honour (Jn. 5:41, 44) belong to general Gk. usage. The specifically
biblical connotation may be seen in expressions like “‘to give God glory” (Lk. 17:18
AV, RV; Acts 12:23; Rom. 4:20; Rev. 4:9; 11:13), “to the glory of God” (Rom.
15:7; 1 Cor. 10:31), in the so-called doxologies (Lk. 2:14; 19:38; Rom. 11:36;
Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; Eph. 3:21; | Tim. 1:17), and in application to Christ (Rom.
16:27; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:18; Jude 25).
(b) When applied to men or earthly powers with the meaning of splendour,
radiance, glory, doxa reflects OT usage: e.g. “‘all the kingdoms of the world and
the glory of them” (Matt. 4:8 par. Lk. 4:6; Matt. 6:29; 1 Pet. 1:24).
(c) doxa in the sense of God’s glory, majesty and power is pre-eminently the
inheritance of the OT. The attempt to link it with Hel. usage (cf. Arndt. 202 f.) is
untenable, for the magical texts quoted have themselves been influenced by ind
thought. God is “the God of glory” (Acts 7:2), “the Father of glory” (Eph. 1:17),
“the majestic glory” (2 Pet. 1:17). The expression “‘the glory of God” is frequent
(e.g. Matt. 16:27; Acts 7:55; Rom. 1:23; 6:4; Eph. 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:11; Rev. 15:8).
The — power of God can be mentioned along with his glory (Matt. 5:13 [many
MSS]; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 19:1). The concept is also applied to Christ:
to his earthly life (Lk. 9:32; Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 1 Cor. 2:8), his exalted existence (Lk.
24:26; Jn. 17:5; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 3:21; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 3:16), his return
(Matt. 16:27 par. Mk. 8:38, Lk. 9:26; Matt. 24:30 par. Mk. 13:26, Lk. 21:27; Tit.
2:13; 1 Pet. 4:13; Jude 24 [but this latter probably refers to the Father]), to his
pre-existence (Jn. 12:41; 17:5) and also as an all-embracing epithet (Jn. 17:22,
24; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4, 6; 2 Thess. 2:14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:8).
The vb. also is used in a corresponding sense, especially in Jn. Its meaning
oscillates between transfigure, cause to share in God’s glory (Jn. 7:39; 12:16)
and make the glory of God or of the Son effective (Jn. 11:4; 13:31 f.; 17:1, 4f.).
(d) The NT also contains evidence of the concept which had been widespread
since Ezekiel, that angels and other heavenly beings are endowed with glory (cf.
OT 2, 3 above). This is found in manifestations from heaven, where stress is laid on
the visible light, a concept taken from the concept of kabdéd (Lk. 2:9; 9:31; Acts
22:11; Rev. 18:1). It is carried a step further when angelic powers are called doxai
in Jude 8 and 2 Pet. 2:10 (cf. E.M.B. Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 1968, 104 f., 168 f.).
Paul is using Jewish language when he speaks of the doxa of the stars (1 Cor.
15:40 f.).
(ce) When Paul speaks of the glory of the first man (1 Cor. 11:7; perhaps also
Rom. 3:23) and explains the shining of Moses’ face as the shining of the glory
(2 Cor. 3:7, 13, 18; cf. Exod. 34:30) he is also using Jewish concepts (cf. C. K.
Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 252; The Second Epistle to the
Corinthians, 1973, 115-126).
(f) Equally of Jewish origin is the important conception (cf. oT 3, above) that
believers share in the glory (Jn. 17:22; 2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:30 vb.) or will do so
(Rom. 8:17; vb. 8:18, 21; 1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 3:21; 1 Thess. 2:12; Heb.
46
GLORY
2:10; 1 Pet. 5:1, 4, 10). The Christian hope is “‘the hope of glory”? (Col. 1:27; cf.
Eph. 1:18; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 2:10).
3. The other forms of the word-group need only brief mention. syndoxazomai
(only Rom. 8:17), be glorified together with someone, has essentially the same
meaning as 2 (f) above. endoxazomai (only 2 Thess. 1:10, 12) is synonymous with
doxazomai in meaning to be recognized as glorious (cf. 2 (c)). The adj. endoxos (4
times) means glorious; in 1 Cor. 4:10 it is to be linked with 2 (a), in Lk. 7:25 with
2 (b), in Eph. 5:27 with 2 (f). Lk. 13:17 looks back to the OT concept that glory
is revealed in the mighty acts of God (cf. oT 2). kenodoxos (only Gal. 5:26) and
konodoxia (only Phil. 2:3) express the vain desire for honour. This meaning is not
unknown in secular Gk., but it is in Christian literature that those words first find
wider usage.
B. 1. For the Greeks fame and glory were among the most important values in
life. The rabbis also had a high esteem for a man’s honour. In Matt. 6:2 Jesus
censured a piety which looks for honour from men. In Jn. 5:44 he stated that this
attitude is incompatible with faith. Paul, following the example of Jesus (Jn. 5:41;
8:50; cf. Heb. 5:4 f.; 2 Pet. 1:17), did not seek glory from men (1 Thess. 2:6). He
voluntarily accepted dishonour (2 Cor. 6:8; 4:10), strove to carry out his service
to the honour of the Lord (2 Cor. 8:19 ff.), and looked to the honour and praise
which Christ would give him as reward on his day (1 Thess. 2:19 f.; Phil. 2:16).
Paul’s statement that in the final judgment the righteous will receive “‘glory and
honour and immortality”’ refers to eternal life itself (Rom. 2:7, 10; 5:2).
2. The glory of this world is depreciated in the light of eschatology (cf. NT A. 2
(b) above). Jesus, however, could also see the glory of the creation (Matt. 6:29;
par. Lk. 12:27).
3. The highest duty of man is to glorify and praise God in worship, word and act
(Matt. 5:16; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31). In the doxologies (cf. NT A. 2 (a)
above) there is no clear indication as to whether we should add the ind. or subj.
of the vb. to be. 1 Pet. 5:11 suggests the former.
4. In the contexts mentioned under 1 and 3 doxa can in general be rendered
honour. In such cases timé may be used as a synonym. Occasionally the two words
are used together. We can, however, always hear the overtone of glory when honour
is given to God and in similar settings (cf. NT A. 2 (a) above), for it must include
the recognition of God’s glory.
(a) The NT concept of glory shows an important expansion of the OT concept
of kabéd in certain directions. This is due to the NT eschatological outlook. In
the NT glory means the divine-eschatological reality or manner of existence.
Salvation lies in man and nature having a share in this manner of existence.
(b) This concept does not, however, cancel the link with the OT kabéd. For
glory manifests itself in the NT, just as in the OT, in the operation of God’s power
and salvation in “‘salvation history’. It appears above all in Christ and his work of
salvation (Matt. 17:2-5 par. Mk. 9:2-7, Lk. 9:29-35; Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 2 Cor. 4:4,
6), in believers (Jn. 17:22; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 1:18; 3:16; Col. 1:11), and indeed
already in the old covenant (2 Cor. 3:7—-11). Just as in the OT, glory is partly
linked with God’s action (Rom. 6:4) and is partly an attribute of his being (cf. NT
A. 2 (c)). The presence of this “‘personal’’ doxa of God in Christ means the pre-
sence of salvation (Jn. 1:14; 17:22; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6).
47
GLORY
(c) The expectation of a revelation of glory at the end of time (cf. OT, 2 above) is
also derived from the OT. The thought in both Judaism and the NT that the
eschatological glory will take the believers and the whole creation up into itself
by a new creation or transfiguration is, however, new (Rom. 8:18, 21; 1 Cor. 15:43;
2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17; Phil. 3:21; Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 5:1). Nevertheless, the concept had
been anticipated by Isa. 66:19, 22.
(d) The way in which heaven is included in this concept is important for the
understanding of the NT idea of glory. Heaven in the NT is not, as was later
generally believed, the permanent and final scene for the revelation of glory. Glory
reveals itself from heaven, but its goal is the transfiguration of the created world
and mankind. It takes place in the transformed creation. Significantly the escha-
tological glory appears in a revelation from heaven (Matt. 24:30; Phil. 3:20 f.;
Col. 3:4; Rev. 21:10 f.).
(e) Glory with its transforming power is operative even now among believers
(2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:30; cf. (b) and NTA. 2 (f) above) through the resurrection of
Christ and our fellowship with him, who is “‘the first fruits of those who have fallen
asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20).
5. It is a matter of debate whether Jn. shares this outlook. But here too glory is
to be understood as a revelation of God, or as the intervention of his power in
history (Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 11:4; 12:41). We can hardly interpret the relatively strong
diminution of interest in eschatology in this gospel as meaning that heaven has
replaced the eschatological completion as the goal of all that exists. The glorifica-
tion of Jesus is not accomplished merely by his entry into heaven; it becomes a
reality by his sufferings, death, resurrection (Jn. 12:23—28), and finally by the wit-
ness of the Spirit (Jn. 14:16). In other words it is a parallel concept to the “‘righteous-
ness” of Jesus (Jn. 16:8—-11; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16).
6. The transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17:1-8 par. Mk. 9:2-8, Lk. 9:28-36) cor-
responds in the Synoptics to the continuing possession of doxa in Jn., though only
in Lk. 9:32 does the narrative use this word. The transfiguration is a parallel on a
higher plane to Moses’ meeting with God on Mount Sinai (Exod. 24:15 ff.; 33:18-
34:35). However, it is not to be understood, as in the case of Moses, as merely a
reflection caused by temporary contact with the heavenly world, but rather as a
revelation of the glory which Jesus possessed continually but not openly. We can
deduce this from the fact that the transfiguration preceded the voice from heaven.
At his parousia Jesus will be revealed in his glory and power (Matt. 19:28 par.
Lk. 22:30; 24:30). S. Aalen
Tip | TIN (time), price, value, honour, respect; TIpaw (timao),
Ts set a price on, honour; atiia (atimia), shame, dishonour,
disgrace; dtipoc (atimos), despised, dishonoured; atia¢@ (atimazo), dishonour,
treat shamefully; évtioc (entimos), respected, honoured, valuable, precious.
CL |. The word timé (from the //iad on) is used in secular Gk. with the following
main meanings: (a) worship, esteem, honour (used of people); (b) worth, value,
price (of things); (c) compensation, satisfaction, penalty.
2. In Gk. thought timé is the proper recognition which a man enjoys in the
community because of his office, position, wealth etc., and then the position itself,
48
GLORY
the office with its dignity and privileges. The timé of a person, state, or deity must
be distinguished from that of another. It is a personal possession. Slaves had no
time.
3. Every deity was shown honour because of the sphere of influence he controlled.
This was done by sacrifice and hymns of praise. The gods on their part ““honoured”’
men by giving them their earthly positions of honour and good fortune.
_ 4. Shame and dishonour (atimia) put a person outside the community. atimia
was the technical term for the deprivation of a citizen’s rights.
5. The Stoics (cf. Epictetus) tried to rise above insult and disgrace by pretending
that they did not touch the true self but only the body and visible possessions.
Honour derived from position, such as that of a king, was regarded as a matter of
indifference. They found fault, however, with the disgraceful treatment of slaves.
OT 1. (a) In contrast to its use of doxa, the LXX seldom uses timé for God’s
honour. Normally it applies timé to human honour, although both words
usually render Heb. kabéd. Man has a position of honour in the creation (Ps. 8: 3-8
[4-9]). Honour and position of office belong together (cf. timad beside arché in
Ps. 139:17 [LXX 138:17]). Honour should be shown to parents (Exod. 20:12;
Sir. 3:3-16), the old (Lev. 19:32), to kings and the mighty (Dan. 2:37; Job 34:19
LXX). The rabbis stressed the honour due to a teacher of the law, and also one’s
neighbour including the poor (cf. also Prov. 14:21, 31 [LXX]; Sir. 10:23) and
Jewish slaves, but not to Canaanite ones. There was a difference of opinion about
the honour to be shown to a non-Israelite.
(b) A man marked out by honour might expect a corresponding position,
wealth (Gen. 31:1 LXX; Isa. 16:14 LXX), and influence (Job 29:20; 30:4, 8,
LXX — sometimes doxa is used in such passages). A worthy appearance (2 Sam.
10:5 LXX; Isa. 53:3), fitting speech (Sir. 5:13; cf. Job 29:21—25), and generosity
(Prov. 22:9, LXX) also went with it.
2. (a) The godless experience atimia (Isa. 10:16 LXX; Jer. 23:40; cf. Dan. 12:2).
The people did not grasp where the deepest dishonour lay, i.e. in faithlessness to God
(Jer. 6:15), and this had to be recognized (Ezek. 16:63).
(b) For the godly in the OT there was the problem of how dishonour could come
to them (Job 10:15; 30:1-12). Only the — Servant of the Lord bears shame
patiently (Isa. 53:3) and leaves his cause in God’s hand. Judaism ascribed an
atoning value to the death of the martyrs and regarded it as honourable (4 Macc.
1:10;17:20; Josephus, War 2, 151). The pious rejected the scorn of the godless as
something derived from a false outlook. The true basis of honour is not earthly
prosperity but virtue and wisdom (Wis. 3:14—5:5). Mankind should be honoured
provided that the fear of the Lord is there (Sir. 10:19). A sublimation and restric-
tion of the concept of honour may be detected here. Apart from Isa. 53, no positive
value was given to shame.
NT |. The word-group is not strongly represented in the NT. Jimé is found 41
times, timad 21 times, the other forms more rarely. Only Paul uses atimia.
2. (a) Only the positive forms are used in the sense of price, sum of money:
e.g. timé (price) in 1 Cor. 6:20; timad (to set a price on) in Matt. 27:9 (“‘the price
of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel’’); and entimos
(precious) in | Pet. 2:4, 6.
49
GLORY
(b) The meaning of timao in the sense of show honour is rare (e.g. Acts 28:10
(RSVmg)). It is not clear whether timé should be rendered honour or honorarium,
i.e. remuneration in 1 Tim. 5:17 (cf. Sir. 38:1; so J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral
Epistles, 1963, 125).
(c) Generally timé represents the recognition of the dignity of an office or position
in society. Examples are the authorities (Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:17), owners of slaves
(1 Tim. 6:1), a wife (1 Pet. 3:7), the sexes in general (1 Thess. 4:4), service in the
church (cf. 4 (c) below). In Heb. 5:4 timé means the honour of a position or the
position itself (cf. 1 Pet. 1:17). The honouring of God is uppermost in the doxo-
logies, where both doxa and timé occur (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Rev. 4:11). For the vb.
cf. also Jn. 5:23, 8:49. Honour should be shown to all men (1 Pet. 2:17).
(d) timé is used for exaltation in the ultimate eschatological salvation (Rom.
2:7, 10; 1 Pet. 1:7; 2:7; Jn. 12:26).
3. (a) In the case of atimos the negative aspect sometimes receives less stress. It
can mean without honour, unhonoured, less honourable (1 Cor. 12:23). In 1 Cor.
4:10 it is stronger, and means despised.
(b) atimazé means to handle shamefully, with or without physical maltreatment:
e.g. the tenants of the vineyard (Mk. 12:4 par. Lk. 20:11), the treatment of the
apostles by the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:41), the poor (Jas. 2:6).
(c) atimia is generally translated in the NT by dishonour, e.g. of a man’s long
hair (1 Cor. 11:14; RSV “‘is degrading’’), of the dead body (1 Cor. 15:43), of the
apostles ‘‘in honour and dishonour” (2 Cor. 6:8). RSV renders atimia by “‘ignoble”’
in 2 Tim. 2:20 which speaks of various kinds of vessels.
(d) None of the uses deviates from secular Gk. A deepening ethical sense can
be found in Rom. 1:26, where under the OT influence atimia means “‘shameful”’
(NEB, cf. v. 24 where atimazomai is rendered “‘degradation’’). In secular Gk.
aischros (cf. Lat. turpis) could be used in such contexts.
4. (a) As in Gk. society and the OT, timé is also used in the context of the social
order decreed by God. timé is respect for the standing and task of a person who has
his place in this order. When it is applied to things, it means the recognition of the
value something has according to recognized norms. Jt may be summarized by
saying that timé is high valuation based on position in an organized whole. This
whole is God’s world of men, animals and things. The distinctive distribution of
honour among things of varying worth is important. The resultant order and grades
of honour must be respected not only by the one placed lower, but also by the one
placed higher. While the wife is placed below her husband, but she is to receive
full honour from her husband (1 Pet. 3:1, 7).
(b) Things and animals have no honour. In the ancient world this was true also _
of slaves (though both the Stoics and the NT judge otherwise), because they had ~
no right to direct their lives; they were looked on as things which had timé in the |
sense only of value or worth. Even this was not inherent, but was placed on them by
their owner. |
(c) The Biblical teaching about natural relationships, e.g. man and wife, parents |
and children, the authorities (see above NT 2(c), OT 1(a)), was developed from this. |
The same principle was applied to church life. Honour was to be shown the elders —
(1 Tim. 5:17, but see above 2(b)), widows (1 Tim. 5:3), and the responsible leaders |
50
GLORY
of the congregation in general (Phil. 2:29). It is noteworthy, however, that this hier-
archical line is crossed by one offering honour to those on a lower level. Those who
carry out the lowest services should be shown particular honour (1 Cor. 12:23 f.;
cf. the admonition to show mutual honour, Rom. 12:10). Those who carry out
their service in purity are all vessels for honour (2 Tim. 2:20).
(d) Man’s intrinsic honour is based on his position of dominion in creation (Ps.
8:5-8 [MT 8:6-9]). To that extent it is conferred by his status in the structure.
However, it is also derived from man’s being formed in the — image of God which
determines his essential nature. All men should be honoured (1 Pet. 2:17; cf. Rom.
12:10; this was also the teaching of the Stoics, though they did not base it on the
imago Dei). Hence slaves were members of the church (1 Cor. 12:13; 7:22 f.; Eph.
6:9), just as much as non-Israelites. In the church the restoration of the image of
God has once more become universally possible (Col. 3:10 f.).
(e) This does not lead, as it did with the Stoics, to the reduction in principle of
all to the same level and to the refusal of special honour to those holding office. The
uniqueness of the NT concept of honour lies in the universal claim to honour
because of the imago Dei. At the same time honour is given to office in its various
expressions. The honour of man and the honour of office are not mutually exclusive
any more than are the honour of man and the honour of God. True enough,
preference for one side or the other must sometimes be shown in definite cases, e.g.
in the relationship between husband and wife (1 Cor. 11:2 ff.) where Paul seems
to see a special aspect of the image of God in the man (vv. 7,14), i.e. presumably
the gift of leadership. (Elsewhere the subjection of the wife is counter-balanced by
the love of the husband which becomes a reciprocal subjection [Eph. 6:21-33;
Col. 3:18 ff.].)
(f) According to the NT, therefore, the Christian must not despise any class of
man. He must, however, be willing to bear personal dishonour. This is not because
it was not real suffering as the Stoics thought. The NT agrees with the Stoic and
Jewish Wisdom Literature, in contrast with the early Israelite, that material
possessions and wealth no longer constitute a basis for honour. Hence to lose them
is in itself nothing to be ashamed of. On the other hand, the NT does not reduce
the ground for honour, as did the Stoics, to an inner quality, such as virtue or
wisdom. Dishonour, through being despised or suffering physical violence, must
be borne for the sake of love after the pattern shown by Christ (Isa. 53:3-8; 1
Pet. 2:23 f.; Heb. 12:2; 1 Cor. 4:10). It is to be endured by the power of God (2
Cor. 6:7 f.), and is made less bitter by the hope of eternal life and glory (1 Pet.1:7;
Heb. 12:2; | Cor. 15:43; 2 Cor. 4:17, cf. 4:8). All this presupposes that it is as a
righteous person that one suffers shame (1 Pet. 3:13, 17).
(g) The dishonour caused by sin, disgrace and degradation is something quite
different (Rom. 1:24, 26). Sin of this kind is not regarded simply as a moral lapse.
The shame lies essentially in the fact that the man has fallen from the honour given
him by God in creation and has misused his body. Honour is also lost not only by
perversions but by false asceticism (Col. 2:23). S. Aalen
On doxa:
(a). 1. Abrahams, The Glory of God, 1925; G. R. Berry, ‘““The Glory of Jahweh and the Temple’’,
JBL 56, 1937, 115-17; L. H. Brockington, “‘The Presence of God, a Study of the Use of the Term
‘Glory of Yahweh’ ”, ExpT 57, 1945, 21-25; and ‘‘The Septuagintal Background to the New
51
GLORY/GOAL
Testament use of doxa’’ in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H.
Lightfoot, 1955, 1-8; G. B. Caird, ‘“The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise in
Biblical Semantics”, N7S 15, 1968-69, 265-77; G. H. Davies, ‘‘Glory”, /DB II 410 ff.; C. H.
Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 201-13; A. H. Forster, ‘““The Meaning of doxa
in the Greek Bible”, Anglican Theological Review, 12, 1929-30, 311-16; D. M. Hay, Glory at the
Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, 1974; D. Hill, ““The Request of Zebedee’s Sons and
the Johannine DOXA-Theme’’, NTS 13, 1966-7, 281-5; E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament,
1958, 79-82; G. Kittel and G. von Rad, doked, doxa etc., TDNT II 232-55; H. G. May, ‘““The
Departure of the Glory of Yahweh”, JBL 56, 1937, 309-21; J. Morgenstern, “‘Biblical Theo-
phanies’’, Zeitschrift fir Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 25, 1911; 139-93; A. M. Ramsey,
The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ, 1949; A. Richardson, An Introduction to the
Theology of the New Testament, 1958, 64—67, 182 ff.; C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Man,
1951, 116-23 and 223-29.
(b). S. Aalen, Die Begriffe “Licht”? und “‘Finsternis” im. Alten Testament, im Spatjudentum und im
Rabbinismus, Skrifter utg. ay Det Norske Vitenskaps-Akad. i Oslo, Hist.-filos. Kl]. 1, 1951; H.
Baltensweiler, Die Verklarung Jesu, 1959; H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum
und Spatjudentum, 1951; W. Caspari, Die Bedeutungen der Wortsippe kbd im Hebrdischen, 1908;
H. J. Duplacy, ““L’espérance de la gloire de Dieu dans |’Ancien Testament’’, Bible et Vie Chrétienne
8, 1954; A. von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1900; F. Hesse and E. Fascher, ‘‘Herrlichkeit
Gottes’’, RGG® III 273 ff.; H. Kittel, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1934; E. Larsson, Christus als
Vorbild, 1962, 275 ff.; A. Laurentin, Doxa: I Problémes de Christologie: Etudes des Commentaires
de Jean 17.5 depuis des Origines jusqu’ a Thomas da’ Aquin; Il Dossier des Commentaires de Jean 17.5,
1972; J. Schneider, Doxa, Neutestamentliche Forschungen WI1/3, 1932; B. Stein, Der Begriff
k*béd Jahwe und seine Bedeutung fiir die alttestamentliche Gotteserkenntnis, 1939; M. Steinheimer,
Die ‘“‘Doxa tou Theou” in der rémischen Liturgie, 1951; C. Westermann, kbd, THAT I 794-812.
On time:
(a). Arndt, 825; G. W. Harrelson, ‘““Honor’’, [DB II 639 f.; J. Pedersen, Israel, its Life and Culture,
I-II, 1926, 213-44; R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 1965 (see
index); J. Schneider, timé, TDNT VIII 169-80.
(b). M. Greindl, Kleos, Kydos, Euchos, Timé, Phatis, Doxa, Dissertation, Munich, 1938; K.
Keyssner, Gottesauffassung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus, Wiirzburger Studien
zur Altertumswissenschaft 2, 1932; B. Reicke, ““Zum sprachlichen Verstandnis von Kol. 2, 23”’,
StTh 6, 1952, 39-53 (especially 47-51); R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen,
1927’, 252 ff.; G. Steinkopf, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Ruhmes bei den Griechen, Disserta-
tion, Halle, 1937.
Goal, Near, Last, End, Complete
Gk. and Buddhist thought has a cyclical understanding of the world in terms of
eternal, circular movement. By contrast, Christianity developed a fundamentally
historical understanding of the world in which existence began with — creation
and will reach its consummation at the end of the world. Beginning and end,
primal time and final time are not poles in a continuous process divorced from —
time, separated only by interludes of human activity. According to the Christian
understanding of the — beginning, the path of history which began with creation
will lead to a final consummation. This is the goal and destiny of creation which will
contain more than was given at the beginning. These ideas find expression in the
NT statements about the te/os, the goal and end of the divine purposes. Paul uses the
the noun skopos (goal) which is attested only in Phil. 3:14. The adverbs engys
(near) and makran (far) and the adj. eschatos (last) are basically designations of
place. They have acquired a temporal sense particularly in the LXX and the NT.
52
GOAL
In biblical language engys frequently denotes temporal proximity, whereas eschatos
is applied chiefly to the final times and the last day.
<a éyyvc (engys), near; éyyilw (engizd), approach, come
| es near; ax pav (makran), far.
cL 1. In secular Gk. the adv. engys (used from Homer onwards as the opposite of
makran and porro, far) means: (a) near (in space), near by (e.g. Thuc, 3, 55, 1);
(b) near in the sense of temporally imminent (e.g. Epict., Dissertationes 3, 26, 6);
(c) with numbers, nearly (e.g. Xen., Hell. 2, 4, 32); (d) related or similar (e.g. Plato,
Phd. 55a; Rep. 3, 319e); (e) in the figurative sense of intellectual proximity (e.g.
Epict., Dissertationes 1, 2, 14).
2. The later vb. engizo (Aristot. onwards), trans. to bring near, occurs mostly
intrans. meaning to approach, to come near (e.g. Polyb. 4, 62, 5), occasionally
with the addition ‘‘(to) the gods” (e.g. Epict., Dissertationes 4, 11, 3).
oT In the LXX engys mostly translates the Heb. gadrob. engizo translates forms of
garab, draw near, approach, and ndgas, draw near, approach. The words are
often found alongside the opposites makran, far, and makrothen, from afar, which
render formations from the stem rdahagq, to withdraw.
1. (a) In the spatial sense engizo is frequently found in phrases which describe
approach to cultic centres (e.g. Exod. 3:5). Only the priests who conform to the
requirements of the cultic prescriptions can draw near Yahweh’s sanctuary (Lev.
21:21, 23; Ezek. 40:46; cf. Ezek. 44:13). engizo can also denote more generally
participation in worship (Isa. 29:13; Ecc. 4:17) and even a devout attitude of
nearness to God (Ps. 119:169; Hos. 12:7 [EVV v. 6]).
(b) Like makran (distant, far), engys (near) can also characterize the approval of
Yahweh. It is one of the distinctive characteristics of the God of Israel, who can
also work from afar (Ps. 136:8; 139:2), to draw near to his people. ““What great
nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever
we call upon him?” (Deut. 4:7; cf. also Ps. 34:19; Jer. 23:23 LXX). The nearness
of God is not understood as a static condition, but as the free divine act of approach-
ing (theos engizon). It is experienced above all in Israelite worship (cf. Ps. 145:18).
(c) The pair of words “‘the near and the far’? (Deut. 13:7; Isa. 33:13; 57:19;
Ezek. 6:12) is a description of totality, meaning and embracing all. Later on in
Judaism engys, near, marks out the Israelite as distinct from non-Israelites, and
within Israel the righteous as distinct from the godless. For the meaning next of
kin, one’s relative, cf. Lev. 21:2 f.; Job 6:15; Est. 1:14 (— Brother).
2. As an indication of time, the word-group expresses the imminent approach of
the Day of Yahweh. In opposition to the way of thinking that saw that day in the far
distance (cf. the quotations in Isa. 5:19; Ezek. 12:22, 27; Amos 6:3), the prophets
proclaimed its nearness. This day always brings with it the impending judgment
(Isa. 13:6; cf. also Ezek. 7:7; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Zeph. 1:7, 14) which occasions
darkness and terror. Only the later chapters of Isa. announce the approach of a
new age of salvation which will bring forth salvation and righteousness (Isa. 46:13;
50:8; 51:5; 56:1).
3. The priestly language of the OT lived on, albeit transformed in meaning, in
the Qumran literature. The community viewed itself in a priestly light. One who
53
GOAL
comes to the community may thus draw near to God. The words “‘come near’’
and ‘‘send away’”’ (in the case of refusal) became technical terms for entrance into
the community (cf. 1 QS 6:16, 19, 22). In a similar way, “‘to come near’”’ is a technical
expression in Rab. Judaism for the recruiting of a proselyte.
NT The vb. engizo, to approach, to come near, is chiefly used in the NT by the
Synoptics and Acts with its original meaning. Paul and Heb. use it more rarely,
and in John it is not found at all. The adv. engys, near, also occurs most frequently
in the Synoptics. There are a number of instances in John, but Paul scarcely uses
it at all.
1. (a) In the spatial sense engys, near, is used a greater number of times than
engizo, to come near. In Acts and Jn. the adv. engys has almost exclusively a local
meaning (e.g. Acts 1:12, “‘which is near to Jerusalem’’; Jn. 19:20, “‘was near to the
city’’). Occasionally the vb. serves to indicate both place and motion (e.g. Mk. 11:1
[cf. Matt. 21:1; Lk. 19:29], ““when they drew near to Jerusalem’’).
(b) The terms are more frequently used with a temporal meaning: the hour of the
passion has drawn near (Matt. 26:45), the end of all things has come near (1 Pet.
4:7), summer is near (Matt. 24:32), the Passover was near (Jn. 2:13).
2. (a) The theological interpretation of the vb. engizo, to come near, in the
Synoptics is linked with Isa.’s proclamation of salvation: éngiken hé basileia ton
ouranon, the > kingdom of heaven has drawn near (Matt. 4:17 par. Mk. 1:15;
Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Lk. 10:9, 11; cf. above oT 2). Behind the formulation éngiken,
it has drawn near, stands the thought of the divine — promise and preparation.
The perf. éngiken (the most frequently used tense of engizo) thus expresses the end
of the time of preparation. God’s kingdom das drawn near, i.e. in the proclamation
and work of Jesus it is already in the present time. ““Thus Mk. also sees Jesus’
proclamation not as the first step of a coming kingdom, but as the consummation
which has now made its appearance and become real here’ (E. Lohmeyer, Das —
Evangelium des Markus, 1967 1", KEK I, 2, 30). Corresponding to éngiken, has
drawn near, is the negative formulation ou makran, not far, which expresses the
overcoming of the separation between God and man (e.g. Mk. 12:34).
(b) engys and engiz6 are also used in the context of the awaited apocalyptic
end-time and the return of the — Son of man. Lk. in particular awaits the future
of the all-embracing — kingdom of God. The desolation of Judaea and cosmic ©
catastrophes will announce the dawn of the end of the world (Lk. 21:20 ff.). “So .
with you when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is
near” (Lk. 21:31; cf. v. 28 “when these things begin to take place... your re- —
demption is drawing near’’). The connection between the dawn of the kingdom of |
God in the coming of Jesus and the awaited coming of the Son of Man in the -
establishment of the reign of God is brought out by Matt. and Mk. Apart from this, |
both use engizé only in connection with the fate of Jesus (Matt. 21:1 par. Mk. 11:1,
Lk. 19:29; Matt. 26:46 par. Mk. 14:42). (On the time and character of these
events —> Generation; — Present, art. parousia.)
3. (a) Whereas in the Synoptics the vb. is used in both perf. and fut., expressing |
the consequent tension, Paul relates these terms exclusively to the future. In Rom.
13:12 and Phil. 4:5 the prospect of the approaching day and the coming Lord :
provide the basis for the admonitions to the Christians to live a life full of hope. —
54
GOAL
“Tf the deliverance is near, then it is the hour to wake up from sleep” (A. Schlatter,
Gottes Gerechtigkeit, [1935] 1952, 359).
(b) The word-group in the Catholic Epistles and Heb. similarly refers to the
near return of Christ and the imminent end of all things (Jas. 5:8; 1 Pet. 4:7; Heb.
10:25). Thus engizd in the NT designates almost exclusively the drawing near of
God and of his salvation to men. Only Heb. 7:19 and Jas. 4:8 speak of a responsive
drawing near of man to God. W. Bauder, H.-G. Link
ae éoyatoc (eschatos), extreme, last, least; é&ésyatov
| el Saal | (eschaton) (noun), end, (ady.) finally; és ydtc (eschatos),
finally.
CL 1. (a) The adj. eschatos, attested from Hom. onwards, is a superlative form
derived from the prep. ek/ex, out of, away from, and originally designated
the person or thing that was furthest outside (ex). Spatially it meant the place
furthest away (e.g. Hesiod, Theog. 731, the utmost ends of the earth), temporally
the last events of a series (e.g. Hdt., 7, 107), materially the extreme, rarely the highest
(e.g. Libanius, Orationes 59, 88, greatest wisdom), mostly the lowest place in order
of rank (e.g. Plato, Tht. 209b; Diod. Sic. 8, 18, 31, the most miserable of men).
(b) Substantivally to eschaton means the end in spatial and temporal respects
(e.g. Hdt. 7, 140; 8, 52). Without the art. eschaton can be used just like eschatos
as an adv., both meaning “‘finally” (e.g. Xen., Anab. 2, 6, 1; P.Oxy. 886, 21).
2. The Gk. language uses the term eschatos to designate the end-point of a con-
tinuously conceived succession of circumstances. It corresponds with naturalistic
Gk. thinking that the “‘extreme’’ is initially represented as the “‘ends of the earth”
(Dem. Ep. 4, 7; Xen., Vect. 1, 6; Theocritus, 15, 8). In qualitative respects eschatos
designates an extreme positive or negative intensification (Pindar, O/. 1, 113, the
highest reaches its peak with kings; Plato, Rep. 36la, greatest injustice; Gorgias
511d, extreme danger). In Aristotle the term denotes the conclusion of a logical
path of thought and thus contributes to the systematization of the thought-processes
(An. 3, 10, 433a, 16). As the expression of order of rank among men, eschatos
means the opposite of prdtos (— first): the lowest and most miserable of men (Dio
Cass., 42, 5, 5; Dio Chrys., 21, [38] 37; Appian, Bell. Civ. 2, 77, §322). The temporal
dimension is expressed in occasional prospects of the end (e.g. Diod. Sic., 19, 59, 6,
the last, i.e. the concluding and final decision) and in the comprehensive designation
of God as “the first and the last’ (protos kai eschatos) e.g. Ps. Arist., Mund. 401a,
28). But this is the least developed sense. Gk. thought has no developed eschato-
logical understanding of time, i.e. one directed towards a future goal or end of the
historical process.
OT The very different historical understanding of existence in the OT writing is
immediately apparent in a preliminary survey. eschatos occurs some 150 times
in the LXX. It has local significance only in isolated cases (e.g. Deut. 28:49; Isa.
48:20; 49:6; Jer. 6:22, ap’ or heos eschatou tés gés, from or to the ends of the
earth). It is not found at all in a disqualificatory sense. Its use is predominantly in
the temporal sense to translate formations from the root of ’ahar (after, behind) and
meaning last, finally, outcome, end. In the historical books the term plays no real
55
GOAL
role, apart from the characteristic and stereotyped phrase “‘from beginning to end”’
(cf. 2 Chr. 16:11; 20:34; 25:26). On the other hand, eschatos features particularly
in prophetic and apocalyptic expectations of the future.
1. A number of prophets use the formula “‘at the end of the days” (b°ah‘rit
hayyamim, LXX ep’ eschatou ton hémeron, e.g. Hos. 3:5; Isa. 2:2; 41:23; Mic. 4:1;
Jer. 23:20; 30:24; 49:39; Ezek. 38:16). This indicates the future-directed thinking
of the prophets which pointed Israel’s self-understanding — till then largely orientated
around past events — in a totally new direction. Moreover, the context in which this
formulation is found reveals that the prophets do not think of “‘the end of the days”’
in mythical or non-historical terms. It was a renewed historical time-span, the final
or end-time. Finally, it is noteworthy that the formula is mostly encountered in
announcements of salvation or prefacing them. Eschatological time will be stamped
by Yahweh’s saving activity. Yahweh will make it possible for his people to turn
back (Hos. 3:5). He will destroy his enemies (Jer. 23:20; 30:24). The nations will
come to Jerusalem and receive instruction from Israel (Isa. 2:2 ff.; Mic. 4:1 ff.).
Salvation will penetrate ‘‘to the end of the earth” (Isa. 48:20; 49:6). Here the local
significance has.a universal eschatological function. In all this Yahweh will reveal
himself as holy (Ezek. 38:16, 23). However much the individual pictures of salva-
tion presented by the various prophets differ, the expectation of a comprehensive
age of salvation ‘‘at the end of the days”’ brought in by Yahweh himself is common
to them all.
2. Apocalyptic literature contains numerous allusions to the end of the days
(e.g. Dan. 2:28, 45; 10:14; 2 Esd. 6:34; Syr. Bar. 6, 8). They are distinguished from
the prophetic expectation by the progression from the more simple pictures of the
future into the realm of the visionary, allegorical, and other-worldly. A certain
element of calculation concerning the final times is discernible (Dan. 8:19 ff.;
10:14; 12:5 ff.; 2 Esd. 14:5). According to the apocalyptic outlook, dramatic
battles will take place between various world-powers. There will be cosmic catas-
trophes in the final times, before Yahweh establishes his transcendent imperishable
—> kingdom (cf. especially Dan. 2:3 ff.; 7:17 ff.). The end of this world signifies the
simultaneous beginning of the coming one (2 Esd. 6:7; 7:113).
In Rabbinic Judaism the calculation of the end (qés) is concentrated on the
arrival of the messiah (2 Esd. 12:32; cf. SB III 671; IV 1003, 1006).
The formula “the end of the days” (ah’rit hayyamim) is also found in the Dead
Sea Scrolls (e.g. 1QpHab 2:5 f.; 9:9; CD 4:4; 6:11). The calculating tendency of .
apocalyptic has here hardened into a rigid deterministic understanding of the final
time. It is the fixed and predetermined time of divine visitation (1QS 3:18, 23; CD
8:2 f.), when the godless and wickedness will be annihilated, but the righteous and |
truth will live for ever (1QS 4:18 ff.; 1QH 6:30 f.). It is not the saving character of ~
the final times that stands in the foreground — as it does in the prophets — but the
day of disaster, judgment and vengeance (1QS 10:18 ff.; CD 19:5-16). Only a
small community of elect (4Qflor 1:19), ‘‘the poor of the flock’? (CD 19:9), will be
saved. By contrast with the expectations of Rab. Judaism, the members of the |
Qumran sect understand themselves as already the eschatological community of |
the saved in Israel (1QSa 1:1). It is they who obediently fulfil the divine regulations |
(CD 20:27 f.), and will be demonstrated to be the true Israel at the end of days |
(CD 20:33 f.). )
56
GOAL
NT As in the LXX, the spatial aspect of eschatos in the NT fades into the back-
ground. In Acts (1:8; 13:47) as in Isa. (see above oT 1) the spatial formula
“to the end of the earth” (heds eschatou tés gés) has a universal eschatological
significance. More important are the material overtones of the least and lowest
(e.g. Lk. 14:9), frequently in the antithesis of protos and eschatos (e.g. Mk. 9:35).
But in the NT, the chief stress again falls on the temporal dimension of eschatos.
On the one hand, it distinguishes the time characterized by the coming of Jesus
from the past (e.g. Heb. 1:2). On the other hand, it contrasts the final future of
God with the present (e.g. Jn. 11:24). eschatos is a concept which features in the
Gospels (Matt. 10 times; Jn. 7 times). It also plays a particular role in Paul (6
times) and Rev.
1. The Synoptic Gospels record 4 times a maxim from the proclamation of Jesus
about the first and the last (Mk. 10:31; Matt. 19:30; 20:16; Lk. 13:30). “Many
who are first will be last, and the last first [esontai protoi eschatoi kai eschatoi
protoi].” This maxim, formulated with inversion in antithetical parallelism,
possibly meant originally something like: ““How quickly man’s fortunes change
overnight”’ (cf. J. Schniewind on Mk. 10:31, Das Evangelium nach Markus, [1931]
1968, 136). In the mouth of Jesus this aphorism undergoes an eschatological
radicalization as the conclusion of a discussion concerning the rewards of disciple-
ship (Mk. 10:28—31 par.). The antithesis of first and last indicates a succession of
rank customary amongst men (see above CL 2). The first are the nobles in society,
kings and rulers; the last are the lowest, slaves and outcasts. The point of this
logion of Jesus lies in the fact that in the coming age this order of precedence will
be reversed. In the kingdom of God earthly power structures are stood on their
head. God stands on the side of those who are the last and lowest on earth. To
them, like the poor followers of Jesus, the kingdom of God is promised, whereas
those who regard themselves as its first candidates, the noble, the rich and the
pious, are excluded from it (Lk. 13:28 ff.; Matt. 8:11 f.). Jesus’ followers are given
the commission of anticipating and realizing now in the present this eschatological
reversal of all values. It is in this sense that Jesus answers the disciples’ disputes
about seniority with the reminder: “If anyone wants to be first, let him be last of all
and servant of all’? (Mk. 9:35).
2. (a) Both the way of life and the proclamation of Paul are in accord with this
instruction of Jesus. He counters the Corinthian enthusiasts by saying that God has
paraded the apostles as the lowest of men, like those condemned to death, a
spectacle and the scum of the world — not for ever but “‘to this day” (1 Cor. 4:9-13;
—> Dirt, art. peripséma, perikatharma). This may be compared with 1 Cor. 15:8,
where with the thought of negative quality is linked the significance of the chrono-
logical conclusion of the list of witnesses (“‘last of all’’) (cf. G. Kittel, TDNT II 697;
—» Birth, art. ektrdma).
(b) Within the framework of his Adam—Christ typology (cf. Rom. 5:12-21;
1 Cor. 15:21 f.) Paul contrasts in 1 Cor. 15:45 the first man — Adam (nT 3(e)) with
Christ “‘the last Adam”’ (eschatos Adam). Adam and Christ are not here thought of
as individual persons, but each as representatives of a whole humanity. The “‘last
Adam’’ therefore does not mean the last man either numerically or chronologically,
but — as the allusion to the gnostic primal man myth in v. 47 shows — Christ as
the new, the second representative of a new humanity created in his image, by
57
GOAL
contrast with the first humanity summarised in Adam (cf. C. Colpe, TDNTVIII
474 ff.). Paul therefore understands the risen Christ, the creator of life, as the
eschatological prototype of God’s new humanity. With the resurrection of Jesus
the final time has already begun.
(c) The letters of other authors confirm that this is not only a Pauline idea, but
one belonging to early Christian eschatology generally. In Heb. 1:2 the prophetic
expectation of the final times expressed in the formula ep’ eschatou ton hémeron
(“in the last days’’, cf. above oT 1) is related to the present time of the early
Christians by the addition of the demonstrative toutdn (“‘these’’, i.e. “in these
last days’’). This has come about through the fact that ““God has spoken fo us by a
Son’*. With the enthronement of Jesus as — Son and as — Lord of — Creation the
turning-point of the ages has come. Hebrews understands the early Christian
present as the beginning of the final time. 1 Pet. also speaks of Christ “‘revealed at
the end of the times” (1:20; cf. also Mk. 12:6), and 1 Jn. makes the recipients of his
letter emphatically aware that they are living in the “last hour” (2:18). To the NT
writers, the characteristics of the final time, now dawned, include the outpouring
of the — Spirit (Acts 2:17; cf. Joel 2:28-32), the growth of mora] corruption (2
Tim. 3:1 ff.), and the appearance of scoffers (2 Pet. 3:3; Jude 18) and —» antichrists
(1 Jn. 2:18).
(d) The term eschatos does not, however, serve merely to denote the new time
which has begun with the coming of Jesus. It also refers to the final, consummative
action of God that is still to come. In 1 Cor. 15:23 ff. Paul makes use of apocalyptic
ideas (see above OT 2) in order to express the chronological sequence of the future
events of the final times. In this scheme death is chronologically the last and
physically the hardest enemy to be destroyed before the final goal (-~ telos) of God
is reached (v. 26 ff.).
3. Only in John’s Gospel is explicit allusion found to the “‘last day’’ (eschaté
hémera, e.g. 6:39 f., 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). It is absent from the synoptics. The
expression takes up and continues the prophetic exposition of the “day of Yahweh’’
(on this see G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, II, 1965, 119-125). R. Bultmann
contends that these passages have been redacted by the early church (cf. his treat-
ment of 6:27—-59 in The Gospel of John, 1971, 218-34). But in view of the context
(cf. 6:39 f.), and of the existential bent of his interpretation (e.g. on 11:24 f.), this
must remain a hypothesis on the level of conjecture. The decisive mark of the
“last day’’, according to the Johannine witness, is the resurrection of the dead. The
judgment of unbelievers (12:48) represents the negative side of this. Thus in the
expectation of the end in John’s Gospel, as in the eschatological proclamation of
the prophets (see above OT 1), it is not the thought of judgment, but the all-embrac-
ing salvation that stands in the foreground.
4. (a) The deterministic thinking about judgment in the Dead Sea Scrolls (see
above oT 3) did not find acceptance in the NT. The only reminder of the concep-
tions of vengeance of the Qumran sect is the vision in Revelation of the seven last
plagues, through which the divine wrath is discharged (15:1 ff.; 21:9; — Anger,
Wrath). But the climax of this vision is not in the annihilation of enemies, but
in the song of praise to the - Lamb (15:3; 19:7 ff.; 21:22).
(b) The formula “the first and the last’”’ (ho protos kai ho eschatos) is only found
as a self-designation of the exalted Christ (1:17; 2:8; 22:13). This goes back to the
58
GOAL
Heb. wording of the divine predicates in Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. In the Gk. trans-
lation of this expression the LXX has avoided the divine title of eschatos and uses
a paraphrase instead, perhaps because of negative undertones. The formula belongs
essentially to the synonymous phrases “the Alpha and the Omega’”’ (Rev. 1:8;
21:6; 22:13; Alpha being the first, and Omega the last letter of the Gk. alphabet),
and “‘the beginning and the end”’ (22:13). The application of these divine predicates
to the exalted Christ means the ascription to him of a rank equal with God’s with
the attribution of the functions of Creator and Perfecter. H.-G. Link
= ae tédoc (telos), end, conclusion, close, goal; teAéw (teleo),
a $ | bring to an end, finish, complete, carry out, accomplish;
tehElow (teleiod), bring to completion, complete, accomplish, finish, fulfil, make
perfect; téAeioc (teleios), complete, perfect; tedelotnc (teleiotés), perfection,
maturity; tedeiwoic (teleidsis), perfection, fulfilment; tedeiwtyc (teleidtés),
perfecter; ouvtéAeia (synteleia), completion, close, consummation; ovvtedém
(synteled), bring to an end, complete, carry out, fulfil, accomplish; tedevtdw
(teleutad), come to an end, in the sense of die; tedevtH (teleuté), end, euphemism
for death.
CL 1. (a) The noun felos is derived from a root tel/-, which means to turn round
(telos = tax; Dem., Or. 20, 19). Originally it meant the turning point, hinge, the
culminating point at which one stage ends and another begins; later the goal, the
end. Marriage is in this sense a te/os (Artemidorus, Onirocriticus 2, 49; the spouse is
teleios, complete, Pausanias 8, 22, 2), as also is death (Xen., Jnstitutio Cyri 8, 7, 6;
Plato, Leg. 4, 717e). telos can mean the completion of intellectual development
(Plato, Menexenus 249a) and physical (Plato, Leg. 8, 834c) development, as the use
of the term feleios also makes clear (Hdt. 1,183,2). telos can have dynamic char-
acter, and is used, for example, of the ratification of a law (Aristot., Pol. 6, 8p,
1322b, 13; cf. teled, to bring to a telos, to complete, e.g. to make his word come
true [Hom. //. 14, 44]).
This dynamic character is also clear in the religious sphere, where sacrifices and
religious rites are called te/é; their intention is to bring men nearer to God (Soph.,
Ant. 143). Also of significance is the religious description of God as the arché kai
telos, the beginning and end of all things (cf. K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae
Magicae, IV, 2836 f.). He alone embraces beginning and end (Scythinos; cf. Diels
I, 189, 32 f.). The function of the formula is thus to make a statement which em-
braces totality.
(b) Anything that has reached its telos is teleios, complete, perfect (e.g. un-
blemished sacrifical animals, Hom., J//. 1, 66). Both a doctor and a thief can be
perfect (Aristot. Metaph. 4, 16p, 1021b, 15 ff.). One brings something to completion,
to perfection (teleiod, e.g. Aristot., Eth. Nic. 3p, 1174a, 15 f.). The pass. of teleiood,
to be made perfect, i.e. to reach perfection, is used equally of human adulthood
(Plato, Symp. 192a) and of fully-grown plants (Aristot., Gen. An., 776a, 31). The
noun fe/eiotés occurs only rarely. It denotes a state of completeness or perfection
(e.g. Aristot., Phys., 8, 7p, 261a, 36). teleiosis is the carrying out of the te/eioun, the
realization, execution, conclusion (e.g. of some work [cf. W. Dittenberger, Sy/loge
59
GOAL
Inscriptionum Graecarum II, 799, 1, 29]). A teleidtés is one who effects the teleioun,
the perfecter. This word is hitherto only once attested in Christian literature (Heb.
12:2).
2. In Gk. philosophy telos has the primary meaning of goal. For the pre-Socratics
the goal of life was delight in the beautiful (Leucippus), contentment (euthymia,
Democritus; cf. F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, I, 1946, 125 f.), and con-
templation (thedria, Anaxagoras, Frag. 29; cf. Diels II, 13,11). In Plato and Aris-
totle the te/los to which one aspires is an ethical goal (Plato, Rep. 2 introduction;
Aristot., Eth. Nic. introduction), and ultimately happiness and bliss (eudaimonia).
In the realm of ethics, therefore, Plato can equate the concept of the perfect
(teleios) with that of the good (agathos) (Phib. 61a).
In gnosticism “‘perfection” is a technical term in the myth of the ‘redeemed
Redeemer.”’ He is the “‘perfect man” (cf. Hippol., Haer. 5, 7, 37). Anyone who is
saved by him through true knowledge is the “‘perfect”’ gnostic (cf. Hippol., Haer. 5,
8, 30). Whether te/eios was a technical term for initiates in the Hel. mystery religions
is disputed (cf. the literature referred to by Arndt, 817).
oT 1. (a) telos occurs more than 150 times in the LXX, chiefly in adverbial com- ©
binations. Thus eis to telos, for ever, is the puzzling and erroneous translation ©
of the Heb. phrase Jam*nasséah in the heading of 55 Pss. and Hab. 3:19. It should |
probably be translated by “‘for the choirmaster” or “‘for musical performance”
(cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, I, 5; cf. A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, I, 1972, 48).
eis telos is found more than 15 times as translation of /anesah, for ever (e.g. Job |
20:7; Ps. 9:7; Hab. 1:4). Starting from the basic meaning “‘to the finish,” eis telos |
can mean utterly (e.g. 2 Chr. 12:12), or, when understood temporally, for ever |
(e.g. Job 23:7). Sometimes eis te/os is used where there is no MT equivalent (e.g. —
Gen. 46:4; Ezek. 15:4). It is also of importance that telos occurs repeatedly as a
translation of gés, gaseh or qg°sat, end, border, boundary. In such cases it means
conclusion, end (cf. 2 Sam. 15:7; 2 Ki. 8:3). gés in the eschatological sense is ©
translated in the LXX not by telos, but by synteleia, completion (see below, 2(a)).
(b) teled is found some 30 times for 8 Heb. equivalents: most frequently (7
times) for the vb. kalah (qal and piel) meaning to bring to an end, to fulfil (e.g.
Ruth 2:21; Ezra9:1). It occurs in the pass. as a religious term: to consecrate |
oneself (e.g. to the service of Baal Peor, cf. Num. 25:3, 5; Ps. 105:28; Hos. 4:14).
(c) teleios is attested 20 times in the LXX: 7 times as equivalent of the Heb. root ©
salém, to be sound, and 7 times for tam(im), complete, sound. The stress lies on |
being whole, perfect, intact. It is used of the heart which is wholly turned towards |
God (1 Ki. 8:61; 11:4), and of the man who has bound himself wholly to God |
(Gen. 6:9; cf. Deut. 18:13). The thought of totality is also shown in the mention |
of a total depopulation (Jer. 13:19), and in the fact that whole-offerings can be >
called teleiai (Jdg. 20:26; 21:4).
(d) teleiod (25 instances) has likewise the semantic content of being perfect and
whole: to show oneself perfect, i.e. blameless (2 Sam. 22:26, hith. of tamam; ct.
Sir. 31:10); to make beauty perfect (Ezek. 27:11). It is used 9 times in the Penta-—
teuch as a religious term (apart from Lev. 4:5) to translate the Heb. phrase millé’
(vad), to fill (the hand), i.e. to consecrate for the cult (e.g. Exod. 29:9, 29). But |
teleiod also means to bring to its conclusion (2 Chr. 8:16; Neh. 6:16).
60
|
GOAL
(e) teleiotés (occurring only 5 times) can also be an equivalent for formations
from the root tam signifying perfection or integrity (Jdg. 9:16, 19; Prov. 11:3).
Wis. 6:15 speaks of perfection of understanding.
(f) teleidsis (16 times in the LXX) occurs mainly in connection with cultic usage.
On 10 occasions it translates milli’?im (e.g. Exod. 29:22, 26; cf. (d)) and means
consecration. It occurs chiefly in connection with the consecration of priests.
2. (a) In the apocalyptic literature of the OT the Heb. gés is understood eschato-
logically (see above 1 (a)). The LXX translates it chiefly by synteleia, end, com-
pletion (e.g. Dan. 8:19; 11:27). In this eschatological sense gés in Rab. literature
refers chiefly to the days of the messiah’s coming which were ordained before the
end of the world (cf. SB I 671; III 416). The end of the world can also be spoken of
idiomatically in the sense of going on for ever (e.g. Yeb. 1:1; Nazir. 1:3).
(b) In Qumran the use of gés as an eschatological technical term is not attested.
The final times are called hagqgés ha@’ah*rén, the last time (1 QpHab 7:7, 12; cf. also
the expression g°mar haqgés, the consummation of time, 1Qp Hab 7:2). Otherwise
gés means time, period, in general.
In Qumran the term “perfect’’ is coloured by the OT. Those who are perfect
(tamim) are those who keep God’s law wholly and so walk perfectly in his ways
(1QS 1:8; 2:2). In a narrower sense the members of the community are called “‘the
perfect” (1QS 8:20; cf. 8:4 ff.).
(c) Philo has a double te/os in the life of man: — wisdom (sophia), i.e. the perfect
and direct understanding of God which comes about by learning, and — virtue
(areté) which is attained by practice (cf. W. Vélker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei
Philo von Alexandrien, 1938, 176 f., 203 ff.). He has three stages on the way to
perfection: beginners, advanced and perfect (Leg. All. 3, 159). To Philo repentance
holds second place to perfection (teleiotés) and the “unbroken perfection of virtues
stands nearest to divine power” (Adr. 26). Both Philo (Plant. 93) and Josephus
(Ant. 8, 280) have the comprehensive description of God as arché kai telos, begin-
ning and end (see above, cL | (a)).
NT In the NT the words of this group occur fairly often: te/os 41 times, teled 28
times, teleios 20 times, teleiod 23 times, teleiotés twice, teleidtés once (Heb. 12:2)
and teleidsis twice. A striking point is that te/os occurs relatively frequently in the
Synoptics and Paul, teled particularly in the Synoptics and in Rev., whereas fe/eios
and its derivatives are more common in Heb. than in any other NT writing.
1. The Letters of Paul. (a) Paul uses te/os to mean end-result, ultimate fate (cf. G.
Delling, telos, TDNT VIII 55). Rom. 6:21 f. speaks of the alternatives which face
man as a result of his conduct: death (v. 21) or life (v. 22; cf. Ps. 73:17). According
to Phil. 3:19, the enemies of the cross of Christ find their ultimate fate in eternal
destruction (cf. also 2 Cor. 11:15). telos occurs 3 times after a preposition: “‘who
will sustain you to the end [heds telous]’ (1 Cor. 1:8); “‘understand fully [heds
telous]” (2 Cor. 1:13); “‘at last [eis telos]’? (1 Thess. 2:16 RSV, cf. mg. ‘“completely’’,
“for ever’’). telos means end in the sense of cessation in Rom. 10:4 (in Christ the
law has ceased to be the way of salvation), and also 2 Cor. 3:13 (the end of the
brightness on the face of Moses concealed by the veil). ([Ed.] M. Black, however,
argues that telos in Rom. 10:4 involves more than the simple idea of cessation.
As in 1 Pet. 1:9, the idea conforms more closely to classical Gk.: “‘the logical end
61
GOAL
of a process or action —its issue, consummation, perfection — and thus in philo-
sophical writings its chief good.” The idea is similar to that of | Tim. 1:5: “‘the end
of the commandment is love.” Black concludes that Christ is the end of the law in
the sense of “‘the climactic development (practically ‘perfection’, ‘perfecting’)’”’
which in turn implies the cessation of the validity of the ‘‘old law’ (Romans, New
Century Bible, 1973, 138; cf. E. E. Schneider, “Finis Legis Christus,’ ThZ 20, 1964,
410-22; R. Bultmann, “Christ the End of the Law,” Essays Philosophical and
Theological, 1955, 36-66; F. Fliickiger, “Christus, des Gesetzes Telos,” ThZ 11,
1955, 153-7; R. Bring in StTh 20, 1966, 1-36.)
1 Cor. 10:11 deals with the ends of the times which “have come over us” (H.
Conzelmann, Der erste Korintherbrief, 1969"', KEK 5; cf. C. K. Barrett, The First
Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 227 f.): the old time will soon be past; we are living
at the close of time (cf. 1 Cor. 7:29, 31: 16:21). In 1 Cor. 15:24 telos means the
conclusion of the eschatological events (cf. Mk. 13:7 par. Matt. 24:6, Lk. 21:9),
the point of time when Christ hands over the —> kingdom to his — Father. telos
as goal is found in | Tim. 1:5. Finally, in Rom. 13:7 telos means tax (cf. v. 6
[telein], to pay taxes).
(b) teled twice means to achieve one’s object: of the power of Christ in the
weakness of the apostle (2 Cor. 12:9); of the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). In two
other places it means to bring to an end: of fulfilling the Law (Rom. 2:27); and of —
completing one’s course (2 Tim. 4:7). Acts 20:24 uses teleiod in this sense (cf. »
13:25). In Rom. 13:6 teled means to pay (cf. above (a)).
(c) teleios occurs 5 times meaning mature, adult: 1 Cor. 2:6; 14:20; Phil. 3:15
(Paul’s statement in v. 12 that he has “not yet become perfect [ouch hoti édé
teteleibmai]’ means that he has not yet attained the final thing, the victor’s prize of _
the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus [v. 14]); Eph. 4:13 (the church is figuratively
called a “grown man’’); and Col. 1:28 (the grown man as the goal of the apostle’s
instructions).
Twice teleios is that which is wholly in accord with God’s will (Rom. 12:2, cf.
Gen. 6:9; and Col. 4:12). In 1 Cor. 13:10 “the perfect’? means the future world,
in which everything imperfect (v. 9) which distinguishes our present world, is
overcome. In Col. 3:14 love is called “the bond of perfectness [syndesmos tés
teleiotétos|” (AV; cf. RSV “which binds everything together in perfect harmony’’).
For by it the gifts given to the — church (v. 12 f.) are fitted together into a whole.
2. The Synoptic Gospels. (a) In the eschatological discourses of Jesus telos is used —
as a technical term for the end of the — world (Matt. 24:6 par. Mk. 13:7; Matt. ~
24:14: Lk. 21:9; cf. the expression synteleia [tou] aidnos, the consummation of the |
age, Matt. 13:39 f.,49; 24:3; 28:20). It also occurs several times in the prepositional |
combination eis telos (cf. NT 1 (a)). This probably refers to the end of the world |
(Matt. 10:22; 24:13 = Mk. 13:13), since this is mentioned in the context (Matt.
24:6, 14; Mk. 13:7). In Lk. 18:5 eis telos means finally. |
The phrase telos echein, to have an end, occurs twice. In Mk. 3:26 a kingdom in
which division dominates is said to have an end, i.e. ceases to stand (cf. on this Lk. |
1:33: the reign of Christ has no end). Lk. 22:37 attributes to Jesus the statement |
that ‘“what has been written about me has an end [RSV ‘fulfilment’],”’ for the words |
of Scripture (Isa. 53:12) are being fulfilled in him. telos as outcome is found in |
Matt. 26:58, and as tax in Matt. 17:25 (cf. v. 24 where te/ein means to pay).
62
GOAL
(b) Typical for Matt. is his use of teled in redactional passages. His formula
“when Jesus had ended” concludes the five great instructional discourses (7:28;
19:1; 26:1; 11:1; 13:53). Matt. 10:23 (the disciples will not have come to the end
of the towns of Israel before the parousia breaks upon them) and Lk. 12:50 (Jesus
is in great distress until his baptism, i.e. his suffering [cf. Mk. 10:38], has been
completed) also have the sense of “‘carrying through to the end.” Lk., however,
uses the vb. twice in the pass. for the fulfilment of Scripture (Lk. 18:31; 22:37; cf.
also Acts 13:29) and once in the act. for the fulfilling of the — law (Lk. 2:39).
(c) The adj. teleios occurs only in Matt. In 5:48 there is the summons to be per-
fect, as the heavenly —> Father is perfect. In the light of the context, this is a com-
mand to be compassionate, to love friend and foe (cf. Lk. 16:36). To serve God
with an undivided heart (cf. oT 1 (c)) can also mean: sell your possessions and
give them to the poor (19:21).
(d) The vb. teleiod is used only in Lk. When the days of the Passover feast were
ended the boy Jesus stayed behind at Jerusalem (Lk. 2:43). Jesus told the Pharisees
to tell Herod that, “‘the third day I shall be completed”’ (Lk. 13:32). Despite Herod
Antipas’ threats of murder he intended to continue his work for the salvation of
men “today” and “tomorrow’’. What his completion on the third day signifies is
not entirely clear. Does it mean that God will put an end to his work on the third
day? Or does Jesus mean: Whatever violence men inflict on me I shall go on
working, for “‘on the third day’”’ I shall be completed notwithstanding, i.e. rise
from the dead (cf. 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46)? (+ Number, art. tritos.)
Finally teleidsis also occurs in Lk. 1:45 meaning “‘fulfilment.”’
3. James and I Peter. In Jas. the stress lies on teleios (which occurs 5 times),
in 1 Pet. on telos (which 4 times).
(a) teleios has also the basic meaning of “‘whole’”’ in James. One is perfect, i.e.
not lagging behind in any point (1:4), when one is patient and forbearing. Jas. calls
the law of — freedom, by which he means the commandment to love one’s neigh-
bour (2:8), perfect (1:25), because this alone makes men really free (cf. Jn. 8:31 f.;
Gal. 5:13). That God’s gifts can be called perfect (1:17) goes without saying.
According to Jas., the man who does not offend in his words is whole and without
fault (3:2). teleiod accordingly means to become whole: only through works is
faith brought to wholeness (2:22, cf. vv. 17, 20). Elsewhere Jas. also uses telos as
outcome (5:11; cf. Matt. 26:58) and te/ed as to fulfil (a law 2:8; cf. Lk. 2:39).
(b) 1 Pet. uses telos as goal (1:9), as an eschatological term (4:7; cf. Matt. 24:6),
as ultimate fate (4:17; cf. Rom. 6:21 f.), and as meaning finally (3:8). teleids, used
adverbially, occurs in 1:13, meaning entirely.
4. Hebrews. In Heb. this word-group occurs with the greatest frequency, rela-
tively speaking (18 times); only the vb. teled is lacking.
(a) By contrast with its use in the rest of the NT, teleiod is here attested 9 times,
nearly always with cultic overtones (cf. oT 1 (d)). It means to make perfect, in the
sense of consecrate, sanctify, so that — like the OT priests — one can come before
God. Heb. uses the vb. to elucidate the distinction between Christ, the high >
priest perfected through suffering (2:10) and eternally perfect (7:28), who was thus
able to be the source of eternal salvation for his people (5:9), and the priests of the
old — covenant who were men subject to weakness (7:28), and whose — sacri-
fices could not perfect their consciences (9:9; cf. also 10:1). Christ alone was able
63
GOAL
to perfect his people by a single sacrifice (10:14). The — law (7:19), i.e. the Levi-
tical priesthood, has utterly failed to bring about sanctification (teleidsis, 7:11).
Therefore, Heb. calls Christ’s heavenly sanctuary the ‘‘more perfect’ (9:11) by
contrast with the earthly one.
teleioo is twice used without cultic reference. Heb. 11:40 means that the witnesses
to faith under the old covenant (v. 39) did not reach perfection, for this was alone
given by Christ (cf. 10:14). Now, however, they too have come to share in the
perfection (12:23).
(b) teleios, meaning adult, occurs in 5:14. teleiotés, ““maturity” (RSV, 6:1),
correspondingly means that part of Christian doctrine which is intended for adults
It is the opposite of arché, > beginning (5:12; 6:1).
teleidtés stands alongside archégos in 12:2 (cf. the formula arché kai telos, see
CL | (a)): Jesus is the beginner and perfecter of faith. He has not only maintained
faith right to the end (5:7 f.; 12:3); he has also laid the foundation of faith (cf.
1:3).
(c) telos occurs in 2 prepositional combinations: mechri telous, to the end (3:14,
this same phrase in v. 6 probably derives from v. 14); and achri telous, until the end
(6:11). telos means outcome in 6:8 and end in 7:3.
5. The Johannine Writings. teleiod occurs (a) 5 times in Jn. and teled twice; (b) 4
times in | Jn.; (c) teled twice in Jn. Rev. has teled 8 times and fe/os 8 times. !
(a) In Jn. 4:34; 5:36; 17:4, teleiod is used where Jesus speaks of the works of
the —> Father which he has to accomplish. On the — cross he can say that they are _
accomplished (tefe/estai, it is finished, 19:30, cf. v. 28). In the High Priestly Prayer —
Jesus prays that his own may be perfected in unity (17:23), so that the world may ©
recognize the sending of Christ (cf. v. 21). In Jn. 19:28 teleiod is used of the Scrip- |
tures being fulfilled (cf. Ps. 22:18). telos occurs once, in the prepositional combina- —
tion eis telos (13:1): Jesus loved his own to the end, i.e. perfectly, wholly.
(b) In 1 Jn. the pass. of te/eiod is used 4 times with reference to — love. Love of
God reaches its wholeness, when men keep his word (2:5) and love their neighbours —
(4:12). This love attains its goal in that they are liberated from fear on the day of
judgment (4:17; cf. 2:28). One who knows fear is not perfectly determined by this |
love, for perfect love drives out fear (4:18). :
(c) Revelation has te/ed 6 times meaning to finish, or (pass.) to be finished. Rev. |
11:7 refers to the completion of a testimony. Rev. 15:1 announces the seven last
plagues upon the world in which God’s wrath is brought to completion (cf. v. 8).
Rev. 20 speaks 3 times of the end of the thousand-year reign (vv. 3, 5, 7;—> |
Chiliasm in Glossary of Technical Terms). Rev. 10:7 and 17:17 deal with the mys- |
tery of God or the words of God being fulfilled. What God has previously deter- |
mined is fulfilled (cf. Lk. 18:31; 22:37).
The formula “beginning and end” (cf. Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12) expresses the |
power of God (21:6) and Christ (22:13) which embraces time and creation. Just as
God is the beginning and end (cf. 1:8), the creator and perfecter of all things, so
also is the exalted Christ (cf. 1:17; 2:8). Rev. has telos once in the prepositional |
combination achri telous, until the end (2:26). It occurs in a summons to hold fast
continually the works of Christ. |
6. In summing up the theological function of the word-group in the NT, a distinc- ©
tion can be drawn between an eschatological and an anthropological aspect. The »
64
GOAL
two are bound up with the general areas of meaning associated with te/os on the
one hand and fe/eios on the other.
(a) First and foremost is the eschatological function of telos. The dynamic, goal-
directed character of the noun is further underlined by the frequent use of the vb.
teled. This aspect stands out with particular clarity in those passages which are
concerned with the future consummation both in the Synoptics (cf. the so-called
Little Apocalypse, Mk. 13 par.), the Pauline letters (e.g. Phil. 3:19) and Rev. (e.g.
20:1 ff.). The important point here is that the end is not understood simply as the
mechanical cessation of movement. It is the consummating conclusion of a dynamic
process, the goal of which manifests the realization of its meaning and its inten-
tions. Since telos is a term with heavy apocalyptic overtones, the historically
conditioned apocalyptic images and computations linked with it cannot be taken
over wholesale without more ado by contemporary eschatological thought about
the future promised in Christ. Rather, the universal, cosmic themes and implica-
tions inherent in them must be restated within the framework of Christian eschato-
logy.
(b) Connected with the idea of the end as the completion and realization of a
goal is the sense of te/eios as that which has reached its goal, and is thus completed
and perfected. To the extent that the whole is achieved only at the end, te/eios may
be applied in its fullest sense only to God (e.g. Matt. 5:48) and Christ (e.g. Heb.
7:28). In the context of individual human development feleios applies to the man
who has reached maturity, the grown man who has come of age (especially in Paul).
The NT does not speak of an ideal of ethical perfection which is to be realized by
degrees (cf. G. Delling, TDNT VIII 77). Rather, when viewed against the back-
ground of the OT concepts of tamim and Salém and applied to people’s actions,
teleios signifies the undivided wholeness of a person in his behaviour. It is in this
sense that the later writings of the NT, especially Matt. (e.g. 19:21) and James
(e.g. 1:4), frequently use the word. When applied to man and ethics, therefore,
teleios denotes not the qualitative end-point of human endeavour, but the antici-
pation in time of eschatological wholeness in actual present-day living. Christian
life in the NT is not projected idealistically as a struggle for perfection, but escha-
tologically as the wholeness which a person is given and promised.
R. Schippers
—> Abomination of Desolation, + Beginning, — Present, — Time
(a). R. Bultmann, ‘“‘Christ the End of the Law’’, Essays Philosophical and Theological, 1955, 36-66;
A. Deissler and F. Mussner, ‘“‘Perfection’”’, EBT II 658-67; G. Delling, telos etc., TDNT VIII
49-87: E. E. Ellis, ‘Present and Future Eschatology in Luke”, NTS 12, 1965-66, 27-41; R. N.
Flew, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology, 1934; E. Fuchs, skopos, etc. TDNT VII 413-17;
E. Kasemann, “‘An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology’, in Essays on New Testament
Themes, 1964, 169-95; G. Kittel, eschatos, TDNT II 697 f.; W. G. Kimmel, Promise and Fulfilment,
1957; J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 1967; C. F. D. Moule, “‘Obligation in the Ethic of Paul’’, in
W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr, eds., Christian History and Interpretation
(John Knox Festschrift), 1967, 401 ff. (on telos in Rom. 10:4); R. Niebuhr, The Nature and
Destiny of Man, 11 Human Destiny, 1943; M. Noth, ““The Understanding of History in Old
Testament Apocalyptic’’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 194-214; H. P.
Owen, ‘‘The ‘Stages of Ascent’ in Heb. v. 11—vi. 3”, NTS 3, 1956-57, 243-53; J. du Plessis, Teleios:
The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament, 1959; H. Preisker, engys etc., TDNT II 330-33; A.
Wikgren, “‘Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews’’, NTS 6, 1959-60, 159-67; R.
Schnackenburg, ‘“‘Christian Adulthood according to the Apostle Paul’’, CBQ 25, 1963, 254-370.
65
GoaL/GoD
(b). J. Blinzler, ‘“Vollkommenheit”, LTK X 863 f.; R. Bring, St7h 20, 1966, 1-36; G. Delling,
“Zur Paulinischen Teleologie”’, TLZ 75, 1950, 12 ff.; J. Dupont, ‘‘ ‘Soyez parfaits’ (Mt. 5:48),
‘Soyez miséricordieux’ (Lc. 6:36)”, Sacra Pagina 1959, 150-62; C. M. Edsman, A. Jepsen, R.
Meyer, H. Conzelmann, H. Kraft, and P. Althaus, ‘“‘Eschatologie’’, RGG? II 650 ff.; F. Fliickiger,
‘Christus, des Gesetzes Telos”, ThZ 11, 1955, 153-7; P. Hoffmann, “‘ Die Toten in Christus’’. Eine
religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zur Paulinischen Eschatologie, NTAbh Neue
Folge 2, 1966; K. Karner, “Gegenwart und Endgeschichte in der Offenbarung des Johannes’’,
TLZ 93, 1968, 641 ff.; B. Klappert, Die Eschatologie des Hebrderbriefes, ThEH 156, 1969; J.
Kogel, ‘“‘Der Begriff teleioun im Hebraerbrief”, in Theologische Studien fiir Martin Kahler, 1905,
35-68; H. Kosmala, Hebrder-Essener-Christen, 1959, 208-39; H. Kremers and R. Prenter, “‘Escha-
tologie”, EKL I 1152 ff.; H. W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwartiges Heil, StUNT 4, 1966;
W. G. Kimmel, “Die Eschatologie der Evangelien”, ThBl 15, 1936, 225 ff., reprinted in Heils-
geschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 48 ff.; W. Lohff, “Telos”, RGG* VI 678 ff.; U. Luck, Die Vollkom-
menheitsforderung der Bergpredigt, ThEH 150, 1968; R. Mach, Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch,
1957; R. Mehl, “Vollkommenheit”’, RGG*® VI 1486 ff.; N. Messel, Die Einheitlichkeit der jiidischen
Eschatologie, BZ AW 30, 1915; O. Michel, ‘“‘Die Lehre von der christlichen Vollkommenheit nach
der Anschauung des Hebrderbriefs’’, ThStKr Neue Folge 1, 1934-35, 333-55; H. P. Miller, “‘Zur
Frage nach dem Ursprung der biblischen Eschatologie”, Vetus Testamentum 14, 1964, 276 ff.;
F. Notscher, Gotteswege und Menschenwege in der Bibel und in Qumran, 1958; and ‘‘Heiligkeit in
den Qumranschriften”, Revue de Qumran 2, 1959-60, 163-81 and 315-44; O. Pléger, Theokratie
und Eschatologie, WMANT 2, 1959; K. Primm, “Das neutestamentliche Sprach- und Begriffs-
problem der Vollkommenheit”’, Biblica 44, 1963, 76 ff.; B. Rigaux, “Révélation des mystéres et
perfection 4 Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament”, NTS 4, 1957-58, 237-62; SB IV 799-1015;
F. J. Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung. Zur theologischen Grundfrage des Hebrderbriefes,
1955; H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 1930; R. Schnackenburg, “‘Die Voll-
kommenheit des Christen nach den Evangelien”’, Geist und Leben 32, 1959, 420-33; E. E. Schneider,
“Finis Legis Christus”, ThZ 20, 1964, 410-22; J. Schreiner, ‘‘Das Ende der Tage, Die Botschaft
von der Endzeit in den alttestamentlichen Schriften”, BuL 5, 1964, 180 ff.; C. Spicgq, ‘‘La perfection
chrétienne d’aprés |’Epitre aux Hébreux’”’, Mémorial J. Chaine, 1950, 337-52; G. Stahlin, ‘‘Fort-
schritt und Wachstum. Zur Herkunft und Wandlung neutestamentlicher Ausdrucksformen’”’,
Festgabe J. Lortz, Il, 1958, 13-25; W. Thising, Erhéhungsvorstellung und Parusieerwartung in der
altesten Christologie, 1970; W. Volker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien, TU
49/1, 1938.
God, Gods, Emmanuel
[esi Oedc (theos), God; @esiocg (theios), divine; Oeidtnyc
(theiotés), deity; Oedtnc (theotés), deity, divinity.
cL The etymology of the Gk. word has not yet been clarified; the only thing that is
certain is that it was originally a title.
1. Gk. religion was polytheistic. The gods were represented in anthropomorphic
form as personal beings who exercised a determining influence on the world and
fate of men, but who themselves were dependent on a superior fate. As they were
not creator-gods, they were not thought of as outside the universe and transcendent.
The cosmos included both gods and men. The influence of the gods was not uni- —
versal, but was limited by their natures and attributes. They were not — righteous
in the OT sense. The Gk. gods had form. Consequently, the statement “‘God is
spirit’’ (Jn. 4:24) could not be applied to them. From Aeschylus onwards the differ- —
ent gods came increasingly to be identified. Their convergence into one divine |
being was prepared by the pre-Socratic thinkers and the ideas of classical tragedy. |
2. The Gk. philosophical understanding of god was non-personal. Philosophers |
sought the origin of all things and the principle that shaped the world. In the process |
66
GoD
of rationalizing and moralizing, brought about by philosophical criticism and
reflection, an important transformation of the Gk. concept of god took place. The
divine forms were spiritualized and finally replaced by general concepts like “world
reason,” “‘the divine,’ and “being,” which influenced and formed the world as
powers giving it meaning and creating order. In Hellenistic syncretism the various
Gk. and non-Gk. divinities were assimilated and even equated as a result of the
recognition that behind the diverse names stood the same entities. This is particu-
larly clear in the Isis cult. Not infrequently these tendencies lead to the honouring
of one godhead as the divine All. The development reached its height in Neo-
Platonism, where the divine is the universal One which has no objective existence or
personality. It is being itself which is manifested through a series of hypostases and
emanations in the world, since it is the ground and force behind everything that is.
oT The religion of the OT and Judaism is monotheistic and personal.
1. In the OT the words ’é/, ’**/6ah and ’*lohim, from related roots, are generic
designations of God. Alongside and alternating with them stands the individual,
personal name Yahweh (cf. G. Quell, theos, TDNT III 79 ff.). The cult names formed
with ’é/ are as a rule connected with local shrines.
"el is a word common to all Semitic languages. It occurs as a common noun (the
god, god) and also as the proper name for a particular god. This is clearly demon-
strated in the texts from Ugarit in North Syria (14th century B.c.). It is true also
of the Canaanites in the first and second millennia B.c. and the patriarchs, for
whom ’é/ is clearly not the highest god in a pantheon, but the only God, whom
they honoured on the basis of his revelation. He appears as ’é/ ‘ely6n, ““God Most
High” (Gen. 14:18-22, RSV who was blessed by — Melchizedek); ’é/ rd’?, “God
of Seeing’ (Gen. 16:13 RSV); ’é/ ‘6lam “the Everlasting God” (Gen. 21:33 RSV,
so called by Abraham); ’é/ bét’él, ““God of Bethel” (Gen. 31:13; 35:7, so called
by Jacob; Bethel meaning lit. “house of God”’); ’é/ ’*/6hé yisra’él, “God, the god
of Israel’? (Gen. 33:20); and ’él Sadday, ““God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11;
48:3; 49:25; Exod. 6:3). (On these titles see A. Alt, ““The God of the Fathers’’,
in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966, 3-66, especially 8 ff.) God
is most frequently referred to as Saddai, Almighty, in Job where it is used along
with El, Elohim, Eloah and Yahweh (cf. E. Dhorme, Job, 1967, lxv ff.). The shrine
of Shechem seems to have been the first central shrine of the twelve united tribes
(Jos. 24).
¢lohim, though plur. in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. gods). Even
a single heathen god can be designated with the plur. ’*/6him (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki.
11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plur. is understood as the plural of fullness; God is
the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God.
J. Schneider
2. The origin and meaning of the divine name Yahweh has been the subject of
considerable discussion. Some scholars derive it from a primitive form Yah which
they regard as an interjection associated with the moon cult (cf. G. R. Driver,
ZAW, 46, 1928, 24). It is suggested that it derives from Ya-huwa, meaning “‘O he”’
(cf. M. Buber, Moses, (1946) 1958, 49 f.; S. Mowinckel, ‘““The Name of the God of
Moses,” Hebrew Union College Annual 32, 1961, 121-33). But this has been rejected
67
GOD
on the grounds that to regard the name as an interjection makes it difficult to
account for the religious content which faith has always found in the name and the
revelatory value which is attached to it (cf. E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament,
19643, 48). It is more likely that the name is connected with the verbal root hwy or
hwh, meaning to be (cf. R. de Vaux, ““The Revelation of the Divine Name YHWH”’
in J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter, eds., Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament
Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, 1970, 59 ff.; E. Jacob, op. cit., 50 f.;
J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 79; T. C. Vriezen, “’Ehje **Ser ’ehje’’, in W. Baumgart-
ner et al., Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, 1950, 498-512).
The only interpretation of the name Yahweh given in the OT is at the theophany
of the burning bush (Exod. 3:13 ff. attributed to the E source or tradition).
‘“‘Then Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, “‘The
God of your fathers has sent me to you,”’ and they ask me, “What is his name ?”’
what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM [MT: ’ehyeh **Ser
"ehyeh]’. And he said, ‘Say to this people of Israel, ‘I Am [’ehyeh] has sent me to
you.’ ’’ God also said to Moses, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “The Lorp [MT:
YHWH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob, has sent me to you’’; this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be
remembered throughout all generations’ ’’ (RSV).
There has been considered debate as to the translation and meaning of the words
-ehyeh **Ser ’ehyeh. This is partially reflected in the RSV mg alternative translations:
‘Tt AM WHAT I AM” and “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.” J. P. Hyatt lists five lines of
interpretation (op. cit., 75 ff.). (4) That the reply is intentionally evasive, because it is
God’s nature to remain hidden, or because to know God’s name might give man
power over him. But against this is the fact that the name is revealed to Moses in
v. 15. (ii) God is the eternally existent one. (iii) “I am because I am.” This suggests
that there is no cause for God’s existence outside himself. (iv) “I will be what I will
be,” or “I will be what I intend to be.” (v) “I am he who is,” or “I am the one who
is.” He is the God who alone has real existence. For discussion of the syntax
involved in this translation see E. Schild, Vetus Testamentum 4, 1954, 296-302; J.
Lindblom, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, III 1964, 4-15; B. Albrektson
“On the Syntax of ’hyh ’Sr ’hyh in Exodus 3:14,” in P. R. Ackroyd, and B. Lindars,
eds., Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, 1968, 15-28.
R. de Vaux holds that the best rendering of the formula is “I am He who Exists”
(op. cit., 71). Yahweh is the God whom Israel must recognize as really existing.
This is not presented as part of a metaphysic of being (cf. Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae I, Q. 2 art. 3). In the context of Exodus the revelation of the
divine name is a proclamation to Israel of the one with whom they have to do.
God is calling his people out of — Egypt and promises to be with Moses for that
purpose (Exod. 3:10 ff.; 4:12; 15, 22 f.; 6:2 f.; cf. J. A. Motyer, The Revelation
of the Divine Name, 1959). The proclamation of the Decalogue begins with the
words: “J am Yahweh’’ (Exod. 20:2; cf. Deut. 6:5). The first commandment
requires exclusive worship and service (Exod. 20:3, cf. 5). When Moses sought
God’s presence, he was not permitted to see God’s — face but nevertheless re- —
ceived the reply: “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim |
before you my name Yahweh; and [ will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, ©
and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exod. 33:19). The God who ©
68
GoD
thus reveals himself to Moses and to Israel is distinct from the deities of Egypt and
Canaan with their fertility rites concerned with the cycle of nature. He remains a
mystery, and yet he is graciously active in the history of his people.
It is possible that the name of Yahweh existed outside Israel prior to Moses, but
there is no conclusive proof (for a review of evidence see R. de Vaux, op. cit.,
49-56; E. Jacob, op. cit., 48 ff.). Nevertheless, Exod. 3 does not appear to give a
new name for the first time but the explanation of a name known already but now
identified as that of the saving God of Israel. Although Israel did not work out a
metaphysical doctrine of — time, the idea of God as “He who Is”’ is paralleled by
numerous other statements about God in the OT (Pss. 90:1; 102:27 f.; Hab. 1:2;
Exod. 30:8; Isa. 41:4; 48:12). But the thought of time is also bound up with that of
Yahweh’s ongoing presence (Gen. 20:28; Jos. 3:7; Jdg. 6:12; Isa. 49:6, 26; cf. E.
Jacob, op. cit., 52).
The Heb. name YHWH s°ba’é6t, Lord of hosts, occurs some 279 times. It is absent
from the Pentateuch, Jos. and Jdg., but is frequent in the prophets (especially Isa.
1-39 [54 times]; Jer. [77 times]; and Zech. 1-8 [44 times]). The hosts in question
have been variously interpreted as the earthly armies of Israel, the armies of the
stars, and the celestial armies of spirits and angels. E. Jacob relates the title to the
ark of the — covenant accompanied by the armies of Israel in battle (1 Sam. 17:45;
2 Sam. 6:2, 18; 7:2, 8, 26 f.; 1 Chr. 17:7; cf. op. cit., 55). He notes that it is found
most frequently among the prophets for whom Yahweh was above all a warrior
God. It is not simply a case of the prophets transferring the hosts from the terrestrial
to the celestial plane. The term refers to the totality of forces over which Yahweh
rules. But possibly the term also had polemical overtones, directed against the cult
of the stars and spirits, claiming by its use that Yahweh also controlled them.
In the LXX the term is translated by kyrios pantokrator, ~ Lord Almighty (2
Sam. [2 Ki.] 5:10; 7:8, 25 ff.; cf. Jer. 3:19; Hos. 12:6; Amos 3:18; 4:13; 5:14;
Zeph. 2:10; 2 Macc. 8:18; 3 Macc. 6:2; Arndt, 613 f.) and basileus ton dynameon,
—> king of powers (Ps. 67:13 LXX). The term pantokrator is taken up by 2 Cor.
6:18; Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:15; 21:22. The Gk. transcription
sabaoth (which occurs some 65 times in the LXX and other versions) is twice used
in the NT (Rom. 9:29 = Isa. 1:9; Jas. 5:4; cf. Arndt, 746).
The name of Yahweh was combined with various Heb. verbs to form proper
names: e.g. Jehoiachin (Yahweh establishes, from Yahweh and kin), Jonathan
(Yahweh gives, from Yahweh and natan), and Joshua (Yahweh is salvation, from
Yahweh and Sta‘ or yéstia‘). The latter is the oldest name containing Yahweh
(Koehler-Baumgartner, 370). M. H. Segal sees in its early existence evidence that
the name Yahweh was known prior to the revelation to Moses (The Pentateuch,
1967, 4). Joshua is the Heb. form which underlies the name of — Jesus.
The form Jehovah arose out of a misunderstanding which in turn arose out of the
reluctance of pious Jews to pronounce the divine name (c. 300 B.c.). Instead they
uttered the word **donady, my Lord. In the MT the divine name was written with the
consonants of YHWH and the vowels of **déndy, as a reminder to say the latter
whenever the word was read. The divine name appears as y*howah in the MT. The
LXX reflects the Jewish reluctance to pronounce the divine name and puts the word
kyrios, — Lord, in its place. The RSV and other Eng. versions also reflect the prac-
tice by giving the word Lorp in capital letters whenever the name YHW#H stands
69
GoD
in the text. The Lat. likewise gives the word Dominus, Lord, for YHWH. The form
Jehovah is thus a malformation giving what is virtually a transliteration of a word
which is found in the text of the Heb. OT, but which was never actually used as a
word. Jt became current in the sixteenth century and is attested in the Lat. of P.
Galatinus in the form lehoua (De Arcanis Cath. Veritatis, 1516, II, 1 f., xlviii).
In 1530 Tyndale used Jehouah in his translation of Exod. 6:3 (Wycliffe had Adonay).
Subsequently Jehovah became the standard spelling. But — also Lord, art. kyrios
OT 2. C. Brown
It was only in the course of history that the belief in the superiority of Israel’s
God over all other gods led to the development of absolute monotheism. Jeremiah
was probably the first to support the proposition that the gods of the heathen are
no gods (Jer. 2:11). This knowledge was first given full expression in Isa. 40:55.
The God of Israel is the Lord of all, whose sovereign power fills all the earth (Isa.
6:3). There are no gods apart from the One (Isa. 41:4; 42:8; 43:10 ff.; 45:3, 6;
48:11). (See further H. H. Rowley, The Re-Discovery of the Old Testament, 1945,
77-93; G. E. Wright, The Old Testament against its Environment, 1950, 9-41; C. F.
Whitley, The Prophetic Achievement, 1963, 93-128.)
3. The LXX is characterized by the Hellenizing of Israelite-Jewish monotheism
and by the reduction of the designations of God. Thus the Heb. words ’él, ’*loah
and ’*/6him are as a rule rendered by theos, ““God’’, and in exceptional cases by
kyrios, ‘“‘Lord’’, or other expressions. Apart from theos and kyrios, ’él is translated
about 20 times by ischyros, “Mighty One’’, ““Powerful One’’, otherwise by dynamis
“Might”, ““Power” (Neh. 5:5), or dynastés “‘Prince’’, ‘““Ruler’’, ““Potentate”’ (Sir.
46:5, 6). The name Yahweh or Yah, which is mostly translated by kyrios, is re-
placed by theos only about 330 times (G. Quell, TDNT II 79).
4. The OT contains no all-embracing definition of the concept of God. On the
other hand, it makes an extensive range of statements which testify to the being of
God and have their basis in the divine revelation. Nor is there in the OT any theo-
gony; it does not go beyond the assertion that God is. He is the first and the last
(Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12), the eternal], the almighty and the living one (Ps. 36:10), the
creator of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1; 2.4, etc.); the Lord, who guides the destinies
of the nations, but who has made — Israel a people for his own possession (Exod.
19:5f.). Israel stands, therefore, under his special protection. Yahweh not only
leads, guides and gives Israel his promises; he also imposes his judgments when he
goes his own way. God is the commanding and demanding God who makes his
will known and demands obedience. The history of Israel is the history of God with
this —> people. Thus Israel’s belief in God is founded on a theology of history.
It expresses a conception of God as personal, that God is capable of all the emo-
tions that a person can have: — love, + anger, — repentance and other emotions.
But even if human characteristics can be attributed to him, he cannot be compared
with any human being (Hos. 11:9). The transcendent God who dwells in light,
where no one can approach, is exalted above time and space and is therefore
unique in his Godhead, not to be portrayed or localized (cf. Exod. 20:4). He is the
eternal —> king (Isa. 52:7) who rules over all the > kingdoms of the world (Isa.
37:16).
The most fundamental feature of God’s being is expressed by the word —
‘holy’. In the OT this has become the characteristic attribute of God. He is the
70
GoD
Holy One (Isa. 40:25; Hab. 3:3; Hos 11:9). But the holy, transcendent God steps
out of his concealment through his word and his acts of revelation, and repeatedly
communicates with his people in demonstrations of power and glory.
The holy God is just in all that he does (cf. Ps. 7:11). He is the — judge who
condemns unrighteousness and to whom man has to answer. But the OT also
testifies to his > grace and > mercy (e.g. Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8). He comforts
the pious (Job 15:11), — blesses him and helps him in his need (Pss. 45:7; 90:1;
94:22). Through the personal relationship between God and his people there is
created an J-Thou relation between God and the individual believer who can turn
to him in — prayer in all his needs.
God in the OT is also called — Father; he is the father of the people of — Israel
(Exod. 4:22 f.; Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). However, a full
knowledge of the divine grace and love which embraces the whole world is only
arrived at through the revelation of the new — covenant. Nevertheless, the OT
testifies to the fact that God forgives transgressions and — sins (Exod. 34:6 f.).
He has mercy on his people in everlasting grace (Isa. 54:8), and in particular
takes up the cause of the poor and needy, and widows and orphans (Isa. 49:13;
Ps. 146:9). Therefore, even in the OT God is not just a dreaded — enemy of man
in his unholiness; he also makes it possible for him both to trust and love, because
he himself loves his chosen people.
5. Judaism confessed the one God in unswerving loyalty and fought passionately
against pagan polytheism. But it saw the one God working in a multitude of
mediatorial and — angelic beings. Dualistic concepts were taken up in apocalyptic
writings. It was this, E. Stauffer argues, that gave the fundamental monotheistic
conviction of the OT the character of a “dynamic monotheism” (TDNT III 96).
The rabbis laid great stress on avoiding the name of God; in its place they put a
whole system of substitute terms: e.g. — Heaven (ha-Samayim or Samayim), the
—+ Lord (“doéna@y) and later the > Name (ha-sém) (cf. K. G. Kuhn, TDNT III
92 ff.). In addition there were abstract terms like Glory, Power and the Abode (of
God).
6. The Essenes of the Qumran community took over a cosmological dualism
which was probably influenced by Zoroastrianism: e.g. God and Belial, —light
and darkness, — Spirit of truth and Spirit of falsehood. To this corresponds the
anthropological opposition of — flesh and spirit, the pious and the godless, sons
of light and sons of darkness. However, the dualism of the two spirits that rule the
world is subordinated to the fundamental OT, Jewish idea of God as the creator
of all things. For he created the spirits of light and of darkness which lie at the
basis of his working (1QS 3:25; cf. 3:19-26).
The Qumran texts give a series of designations of God. God is not only the crea-
tor of the world and of men, but also in a special way the “God of Israel’? (1QM
1:9 f.; 14:4; 18:6), the “Father of the sons of truth’? (LQH 9:35). His majesty
and glory are expressed in his being called the “Prince of gods,” the ““King of
majesties,” the “Ruler of all creatures’’ (1QH 10:8), the “Highest” or the“‘Highest
of all’? (QS 4:22; 1QGen Ap 2:4; 20:12), the ‘“‘“God of gods’ (LQM 14:16), the
“King of kings” (ibid.), the ‘Ruler over all the kings of the earth’ (1 QGen Ap 20:13).
He is the “God of knowledge” (1QS 3:15; 1QH 1:26), full of deep and unfathom-
able secrets (1QS 11:5; 1QH 10:3; 12:13), who hides all wisdom within himself
71
GoD
(1QH 12:10) and thus is the foundation of knowledge (1QS 10:12). The eternal
God (1QH 13:13) is wise (1QH 9:17), just (1QH 11:7, 18; 14:15), all his deeds are
just (1QH 13:19), the True (1QH 15:25) and Holy (1QM 19:1), but also the God
who is full of grace, favour, goodness and mercy (1QH 4:32, 37; 7:30 f.; 9:34;
10:14, 16; 11:29), who forgives sins and by his righteousness cleanses men from
their guilt and from the “terrors of falsehood’’ (1QH 4:37; cf. 1QS 11:14; 1QHFr
2:13). He is the source of judgments (1QS 10:18) and acts of grace (1QS 10:16)
found in history and the life of individuals.
All this is experienced by the pious who belong to the sons of light. Through the
grace and goodness of God they receive — justification and atonement (1QS 11:
13 f.). But above all they have received through revelation and instruction, the
—> mysteries of God and of his mighty acts which are otherwise hidden from men
(1QH 11:9f., 17).
The Qumran doctrine of God stands out as being rigidly deterministic. God’s
actions are determined by a fixed plan (1QS 3:15; 11:11; 1QH 18:22). Nothing
happens apart from his will (1QS 3:15; 11:17, 19; 1QH 1:20; 10:9), for all au-
thority is in his power.
This is especially true for the personal life of the individual. The pious poet
acknowledges, ‘““Thou hast not cast my lot in the congregation of vanity, nor hast
thou placed my portion in the council of the cunning” (1QH 7:34). “Thou hast
known me from [the time of] my father [and hast chosen me] from the womb”
(1QH 9:30). His hand leads him at all times and his just rebuke accompanies
all his perversity (1QH 9:32 f.). He can only speak because God opens his mouth
(1QH 11:33). All his thinking and planning is determined by God (1QH 10:5 f.).
The eschatological statements of Qumran are also strongly characterized by
determinism. God created the righteous for eternal salvation and lasting peace,
but the “perverse” for the time of his wrath (1QH 14:15 ff.); from their mother’s
womb they were “‘dedicated to the Day of Massacre”’ (ibid., 15:17). The “lot” of
Belial will bring judgment to eternal destruction (1QM 1:5); all ‘“‘men of lies” will
be destroyed (1QH 4:20).
The influence of the Qumran texts on the NT has been greatly overestimated.
In the case of the doctrine of God, at any rate, no real connections are to be found.
Primitive Christianity is much more independent in the expression of its theological
thought than is often accepted. (This is true also of the cases when it has borrowed
Jewish apocalyptic and gnostic concepts as vehicles for primitive Christian theo-
logy and preaching.)
7. Philo’s concept of God has been affected by his attempt to link the OT idea
of Yahweh with the Platonic-Stoic idea of God. When he speaks of the God of |
Israel, he distinguishes between ho theos and ho kyrios. ho theos is the good God,
the Creator; ho kyrios the kingly Lord of the world. By omitting the definite article
and speaking of theos he indicates the “second God,” the Word. Philo also makes
extensive use of the philosophical concept of to theion, the divine. For Philo God is
fully transcendent and also the active power in everything. He produces out of |
himself the original, typical ideas, and forms them into the visible world. The Word |
is his mediator for creation and revelation. (See further H. A. Wolfson, Religious ©
Philosophy, 1961; and Philo: Foundations of Religious’ Philosophy in Judaism, ©
Christianity and Islam, I-Il, 1962.)
2
GoD
NT The NT rests firmly on the foundation of the OT, when it speaks about God,
but its emphases are new. He is the God who is near, the Father of Jesus Christ
who justifies freely by his grace (cf. the Pauline concept of the — righteousness of
God). His action in election bursts all claims to exclusiveness. But it is the same
God who reveals himself here as in the OT, and whose plan of salvation, there
promised, comes to fulfilment here.
1. The one God. (a) theos is the most frequent designation of God in the NT.
Belief in the one, only and unique God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6;
Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19) is an established part of primitive Christian
tradition. Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Judaism his own and
expressly quoted the Shema (Deut. 6:4 f.; Mk. 12:29 f.; cf. Matt. 22:37; Lk. 10:27).
This guaranteed continuity between the old and the new covenant. For the
God whom Christians worship is the God of the fathers (Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14),
the God of — Abraham, of — Isaac and of — Jacob (Acts 3:13; 7:32; cf. Matt.
22:32; Mk. 12:26; Lk. 20:37), the God of Israel (Matt. 15:31; Lk. 1:68; Acts
13:17; cf. 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 11:16), and the God of — Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:3;
Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). Just as God once made — Israel his — people, so now he
has chosen those who believe in Christ as an elect race and a holy people for his
possession (Acts 15:14; 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:9; Heb. 11:25). — Faith is in him (Rom.
4:3; Gal. 3:6; Tit. 3:8; Jas. 2:23; Heb. 6:1; 1 Pet. 1:21), ~ hope is on him (Acts
24:15; Rom. 4:18; 2 Cor. 3:4; 1 Pet. 3:5), and — prayer is to him. The community
of Jesus may have no false gods beside him, whether Mammon (Matt. 6:24),
the — “belly” (Phil. 3:19) or the cosmic powers (Gal. 4:8 ff.). It must serve him
alone, do his will and remain faithful to him.
(b) Confession of the one God appears in Eph. 4:6 in an expanded form (“‘one
God and Father of us all, who is above all and through and in all’), which glorifies,
no doubt under Jewish-Hel. influence, the omnipresence of the rule of God.
Similar formulae, referring now to God, now to Christ, occur in Rom. 11:36 and
1 Cor. 8:6. (See further J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 19727, 1-29; O.
Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1949; V. H. Neufeld, The Earliest
Christian Confessions, 1963; E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 1955, 244 ff.)
(c) The one God is the living and only true God (Rom. 3:30; Gal. 3:20; 1 Thess.
1:9; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; Jude 25; cf. Jn. 17:3). He is the God whom the
heathen do not know (1 Thess. 4:5). It is true that Paul reckons with the existence
of ‘‘so-called’”’ gods, who have authority as demonic powers over the heathen, but
for the Christians there is only the one God (1 Cor. 8:5 f.). Even if the honour and
power of gods does not belong to the stoicheia (—> Law, article stoicheia) which the
Galatians previously worshipped, they can still intrude divisively between the young
congregation and their God (Gal. 4:8 f.).
This one God is called “‘our God” (Acts 2:39; 2 Pet. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 7:12; 19:5).
The individual believer, above all Paul, can speak quite personally of him as his
God (Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4; 2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 1:3; 4:19; Phlm. 4). Belief in the
one God involves turning away from all heathen ways. Therefore in missionary
preaching testimony to God is linked with the struggle against the worship of false
gods (Acts 14:15; 17:24 f.; 19:26).
(d) The Epistles and especially Acts give a partial picture of the excesses of the
NT world and their local expression. According to Acts, Paul was painfully
73
GOD
impressed in Athens by the many figures of gods and shrines which he saw as he went
through the city (Acts 17:16, 23). Just how strongly the cult of Artemis dominated
the religious life of Ephesus is clear from the impressive account in Acts 19:23-41.
(On the background to this see E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 571 ff.)
Here things came to a head through a violent clash with the silversmiths who
derived great profit from making little models of the temple of Artemis and felt
their economic existence threatened by Paul’s preaching. 1 Cor. 8:1-7 indicates
the significance of sacrificial meals in the heathen cultus at Corinth. — Magic
played an important part in Hel. times; in Acts it is mentioned in 8:9 (Samaria),
13:6 (Cyprus) and 19:13 ff. (Ephesus). In Ephesus, as a result of the powerful
testimony borne to the Christian message of salvation, the books of magic were
publicly burned (Acts 19:19). (See further below, section 9.)
Conversion to the true and living God was experienced by those who had become
believers as a gift of grace; for they had been freed from bondage to false gods
(1 Thess. 1:9). But for many Christians the fascinating power of the heathen cults
had not entirely lost its force. Therefore Paul explained to the Corinthians, “I do
not want you to be partners with demons” (1 Cor. 10:20), for the heathen presented
their sacrifices to demonic beings and not to God (see further C. K. Barrett, The
First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 236 ff.).
2. The transcendent God. (a) God is the creator, sustainer and Lord of the world
(Acts 17:24; Rev. 10:6), the master-builder of all things (Heb. 3:4). He exercises
his lordship from — heaven, for heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool
(Matt. 5:34; 23:22; Acts 7:49). He is the Almighty with whom nothing is im-
possible (Mk. 10:27). No one can hinder, let alone destroy, his work (Acts 5:39; cf.
2 Tim. 2:9). He is the highest (Mk. 5:7; Lk. 1:32; Acts 7:48; 16:17; Heb. 7:1),
the great — king (Matt. 5:35), the king of the nations (Rev. 15:3).
(b) Prayer is a powerful witness to belief in the transcendent God, for — prayer
is directed to God who is in heaven (Matt. 6:9; cf. Jn. 17:1), but who hears the
suppliant here. At present the — Satanic and demonic powers still stand opposed
to God’s rule on earth. Therefore the congregation of Jesus prays for the full
revelation of his basileia (— kingdom), for the full accomplishment of his will
(“on earth as it is in heaven,’’ Matt. 6:10), and for the hallowing of his > name
(Matt. 6:9). In Jesus the kingdom of God has already broken in; it has been
demonstrated by his powerful and wonderful acts. He has broken into Satan’s
realm and driven out demons by the “finger of God’”’ (Lk. 11:20); but only the age
to come will bring the full establishment of the kingdom of God. Then Christ will
conquer the powers opposed to God (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 21:8, 27).
When he has completed this his last task, God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).
3. The personal character of God. When speaking about the personal character of
God, it is illegitimate to transfer to God the concept of the human personality.
God must not be imagined to possess a limiting — form. On the other hand, we
are only capable of speaking of him in concepts which belong to our categories of
thought. Moreover, if the personal character of God is ignored or restricted, the
meaning of revelation is drastically changed. A depersonalized God is not the
God of the NT.
The God to whom the NT testifies is the God who speaks and acts; he reveals
himself through word and deed. He works in sovereign, absolute power (Jn. 5:17).
74
GoD
He makes his will known in > command and demand, and brings everything to
the — goal that he has — determined. After he had spoken in the old — covenant
in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, he has spoken in these last days “‘to
us” through the Son, who reflects his — glory and bears the very stamp of his
nature (Heb. 1:1 ff.). In the preaching of the word he addresses every man per-
sonally and receives into his — fellowship all who believe on Jesus. There are
countless illustrations of this I-Thou relationship in the NT; it is the distinguishing
mark of genuine biblical piety. Without it Christian belief in God would lack its
ultimate depth.
(b) It belongs to the personal character of God that he is — Spirit (Jn. 4:24).
Activities of the Spirit and of power proceed from him. The Spirit of God descended
on Jesus at his —> baptism (Matt. 3:16; cf. 12:18). Filled by this Spirit, he worked
as the messiah sent by God. Matt. 12:28 states explicitly that he cast out the
evil spirits through the Spirit of God. Christians are characterized by having, not
the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God (1 Cor. 2:12), for the natural
man does not understand anything that comes from the Spirit of God (1 Cor.
2:14f.). Only the spiritual man is capable of knowing God (1 Cor. 2:11) and of
penetrating the depths of God. God has revealed his secret wisdom to believers
through his Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10). He dwells in them and thus becomes the formative
power of their being (1 Cor. 2:11).
In this age limits are imposed on the believer’s knowledge. In God’s rule over
salvation history there are “‘times and seasons’ of true revelation which he has
reserved for himself (Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:2), ‘judgments’ which are
incomprehensible and “‘ways’’ which are unsearchable (Rom. 11:33). Nevertheless,
—> mysteries, which have been hidden in God from the beginning of time until
now, have been made known through the proclamation of the message of salvation.
The apostolic ministry, given by grace, testifies to the world of the unfathomable
riches of Christ. Through the Christian community the knowledge about God’s
manifold wisdom has penetrated even as far as the cosmic powers (Eph. 3: 8-10).
Paul saw himself as the custodian of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1).
In 1 Cor. 6:11 the apostle explains that the Spirit of God (in conjunction with
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ) has washed, sanctified and justified Christians.
Through the divine Spirit working in them they are no longer in the realm of the
—> flesh but in that of the Spirit. Hence they live according to the Spirit (Rom.
8:4-14).
True confession of Christ is brought about by the Spirit of God (Rom. 10:9;
1 Cor. 12:3; cf. Matt. 16:17). In situations of suffering he gives the word that is
necessary for the defence of and witness to the gospel (Matt. 10:20). He rests on
those who are abused on account of the name of Christ (1 Pet. 4:14).
(c) The personal character of God finds special expression in the confession of
God as-— Father. Jesus’ relationship to God is essentially determined by his
Father—Son relationship. As the “only-begotten”’ Son, he is bound to God in a
special way, as Jn.’s use of the monogenés is intended to show (cf. Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16,
18; 1 Jn. 4:9). ([Ed.] Lit. the Gk. means “‘of a single [monos] kind [genos].’’ While
genos is distantly related to gennan, beget — Birth, there is little linguistic justifica-
tion for translating monogenés as “‘only begotten.”’ The latter practice originated
with Jerome who translated it by the Lat. unigenitus to emphasize Jesus’ divine
DD
GOD
origin in answer to Arianism. The word monogenés reflects the Heb. yahid, only,
precious [Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, of Isaac], and is used in Heb. 11:17 of Isaac who was
unique in the sense of being the sole son of promise, but who was not the only son
whom Abraham begat. Perhaps the word may best be translated as “‘unique’’. Jn.
clearly intends to distinguish Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father from that
of others who become children of God through him [cf. Jn. 1:14 with v. 13]. For
further discussion see Arndt, 528; D. Moody, JBL 72, 1953, 213-19; R. E. Brown,
The Gospel According to John, I, 1966, 13 f.)
In — prayer Jesus called God “Abba, Father’? (Mk. 14:36) or — ‘“‘Father”’
(Matt. 11:25 f.; Lk. 23:24; Jn. 11:41; 17:1; 5, 11). At other times he spoke of him
as his heavenly Father (e.g. Matt. 10:33; 16:17). Jn. emphasizes the Father-Son
relationship between God and Jesus (about 80 times) more strongly than the
Synoptics (but see the fuller version of Peter’s confession of Christ in Matt. 16:16 ff.
par. Mk. 8:29, Lk. 9:20; cf. Jn. 6:68 f.). Jesus also gave his disciples the right
to approach God with the invocation “our Father” (Matt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2). In the
quiet room at home the individual may pray personally to his Father (Matt. 6:4,
6, 18). The name “‘Father”’ is applied to God in illustrations and parables (e.g. Lk.
15:11 ff.). As Father, God is the God who is near to whom man can turn in
believing trust with all his petitions. Moreover, God is the sustainer of the creatures
he has made. He receives them with fatherly goodness and surrounds them with
his care (Matt. 6:26-32; 10:29-31).
The NT epistles use the solemn, confessional formula ‘“‘the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ’? (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3).
In Christ believers are related to God as children. His Spirit testifies to them that
they are God’s children (Rom. 8:16). Therefore, in prayer they too may cry
‘“‘Abba, Father’ (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15). This is a gift of grace procured through
the Spirit of the Son of God.
The idea of the children of God takes on a special colouring in 1 John. Here the
statements are no longer determined, as in Paul, by the concept of adoption, of
being received into the place of a child, but by that of begetting (— Birth, art.
gennao). Christians are God’s children because they have been begotten by God
(1 Jn. 3:9; cf. 2:29; 4:7). This means that the origin of their new being is to be
found solely in God (1 Jn. 4:4). With this are linked statements of a mystical
nature. John knew not only a Christ-mysticism but also a God-mysticism. There is
true fellowship with God only when Christians abide in God and when God
abides in them (1 Jn. 4:16). But as God is love, this means abiding in love. Out of
this deep, inner relationship with God arises a completely new, concrete, ethical
obligation: love of the brethren which must lead to practical aid (1 Jn. 3:16 f.).
4. The attributes of God. (a) In the NT there is no fixed, systematically ordered
doctrine of the attributes of God. But there is a wealth of allusions, especially in
expressions of prayer and faith and in descriptions of divine acts. More rare than
in the OT but nevertheless present are allusions to the — holiness of God (Jn.
17:11; 1 Pet. 1:15; Rev. 3:7; 4:8; 15:4), his (present and future) wrath (— Anger)
(Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 9:22; Eph. 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 6:17; 11:18; 14:10), and
his glory (Acts 7:2; Rom. 1:23; 6:4; Eph. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:12; Tit. 2:13; Rev.
15:8; 21:11, 23). It is otherwise in the case of the kingly rule of God (— Kingdom),
which in the Synoptic Gospels forms the centre of Jesus’ preaching, but which in the
76
GoD
proclamation of the apostles withdraws into the background in favour of the
message of Christ. Only once is God called te/eios, in the sense of moral perfection
(Matt. 5:48, — Goal). The — will of God is spoken of more often (as commanding,
demanding and gracious); his mysterious counsel (Acts 20:27) and plan of salva-
tion (Eph. 1:3-11) are also spoken of. Paul strongly emphasizes the faithfulness of
God (Rom. 3:3; 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; cf. 2 Cor. 1:18). God abides by his — promises
and fulfils them (Rom. 9:6 ff.; — Fullness, art. p/érod). For Israel this means that
God’s gifts of grace and their election by God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). God
does not lie (Heb. 6:18; cf. Tit. 1:2); he is utterly true and his testimony is absolutely
valid (Jn. 3:33).
(b) God is the eternal (Rom. 16:26) and only wise God (Rom. 16:27). Beside
these expressions stand others which are to be found in contemporary philoso-
phical language. Thus God is described as the invisible (Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15 f.;
1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27) and the immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17). In 1 Tim.
1:11 and 6:15 he is called by an attribute taken over from Hellenistic Judaism, the
‘blessed’? God. The doxology in 1 Tim. 6:15 f. is reminiscent of the prayers of the
Hellenistic synagogue (for a review of background ideas see C. Spica, Les Epitres
Pastorales, 1947, 200 f.). It confesses God in solemn words as the only Sovereign,
the King of kings, the Lord of lords, who alone is immortal, who dwells in un-
approachable light and whom no man has ever seen nor can see.
Paul’s description of God in the Areopagus speech (Acts 17:24) also betrays
Hellenistic influence. It uses Isa. 42:5 freely and has affinities with Seneca, Ep.
41, 3 (cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 522; cf. also 2 Ki. 19:18;
Dan. 5:4 LXX; Wis. 13:10). God created the world and everything that is in the
world. The Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by human
hands. Nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he
himself gives to all beings life and breath and everything else. Though some of
these expressions may sound strange today, Paul was concerned to testify to the
true and living God in terms that were relevant to his day. This is the God whom the
heathen of Athens worshipped, more unconsciously than consciously, and to
whom they had erected an altar with the inscription ““To an unknown god [agnoésté
thed|” (Acts 17:23). (E. Norden interpreted this as a reference to the unknown God
of Gnosis in Agnostos Theos, 1913, 57 ff., but this is generally recognized as in-
correct [cf. E. Haenchen, op. cit., 521, and also Arndt, 12]). The apostle could even
press into service for his missionary task the words of a Greek poet which carry
the stamp of pantheistic mysticism, “In him [God] we live and move and have our
being’? (Epimenides); “We are his offspring’ (Aratus, Phaenomena 5; cf. Acts
17:28; see also below, section 9). ([Ed.] For Paul, man had a natural awareness of
God which was consonant with the revelation of God in the OT and Christian
experience. This knowledge is sufficient to show the error of identifying God with
any finite thing or creature. Paul does not argue that man may arrive at such a
conclusion as the result of a metaphysical proof. Man has this awareness already,
and reflection on the finite character of the natural order should be sufficient to
tell him that God is not to be identified with anything or anyone within that order
[Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:19 ff., 32; and possibly Rom. 2:12-16, though this last
passage may well refer to Gentile believers who have responded to the gospel
without having had the law and who thus fulfil the promise of the new covenant of
77
GoD
Jer. 31:31 ff.]. For further discussion see N. B. Stonehouse, Paul before the Areo-
pagus and Other New Testament Studies, 1957, 1-40; H. P. Owen, “The Scope of
Natural Revelation in Rom. | and Acts 17,” NTS 5, 1958-9, 133-43; C. Brown,
Karl Barth and the Christian Message, 1967, 94-98; and the literature listed by E.
Haenchen, op. cit., 516.)
(c) A central concept in Paul’s theology is the — righteousness of God (Rom.
1:17, 21 f.; 9:30; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). It is a judging but also a saving
righteousness. God is just when he condemns sinful mankind. But he is equally
just when he bestows his forgiving grace on those who have believed in Christ and
in the salvation procured through him. For Christ’s sake, in whom God himself
offered the atoning sacrifice for the — guilt of mankind, he does not count their
sins against them but pronounces them righteous. Thus the dikaiosyné theou forms
the foundation of Paul’s doctrine of — justification (cf. L. Morris, The Apostolic
Preaching of the Cross, 1963*, 273 ff.; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings,
1967, 82-162).
(d) Because God is the initiator of salvation, both he and Christ are called sétér,
saviour (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Tit. 1:3; 2:13; 3:4). God sent his Son into the world
(Gal. 4:4) and delivered him to death for us (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:10; cf. Rom. 8:32).
The saving act of God is proclaimed through the word of the cross which is under-
stood by believers as God’s power and God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 1:18, 24). For Christ
has been made by God our — wisdom, righteousness, sanctification (— Holy) and
—»> redemption (1 Cor. 1:30).
Paul can call the whole message of salvation, declared to the world, the >
“gospel of God” (Rom. 15:16; 1 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 1:11; cf. also 1 Pet. 4:17). It
brings salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 2:5). At the same
time the offer of salvation, which comes through the proclamation, is universal.
God desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth
(1 Tim. 2:4), for his saving grace has appeared to all men (Tit. 2:11).
The power of God (— Might) is not only at work in the gospel; it has demon-
strated itself to be powerful from the beginning. Every man can recognize the
invisible being of God in the works of creation (Rom. 1:20). It is also the power of
God which raised Christ from the dead (Acts 2:24, 32; Rom. 8:11; 10:9) and
thereby ushered in the new creation of mankind and of the universe. Believers
even now experience the transcendent — fullness of God’s power (2 Cor. 4:7),
his mighty strength (Eph. 1:19; 3:20). Hence the apostle prays that they may be
continually built up through the Spirit, according to the riches of his glory, with
power in the inner man (Eph. 3:16). But the ultimate aim of faith, knowledge and
love is to be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph. 3:19).
John has the expression which does not occur elsewhere in the NT, ‘‘to have
God” (1 Jn. 2:23; 2 Jn. 9). Having God, which includes having the Son (1 Jn.
5:12), is bound up with a firm, true confession of Christ, free from every false
doctrine (1 Jn. 5:11; — Fellowship, art. echo).
(e) The saving power of the divine being is expressed in a series of genitives which
are connected with the noun God. God is the God of — peace (Rom. 15:33;
16:20; 1 Thess. 5:23; Phil. 4:9; 1 Cor. 14:33; cf. Heb. 13:20), the God of —
mercy (Lk. 1:78), the Father of mercies and the God of all — comfort (2 Cor.
1:3; cf. Rom. 12:1), the God of all grace (1 Pet. 5:10, 12), who has blessed us in
78
GoD
Christ with the fullness and the riches of his grace (Eph. 1:7), the God of — love
(2 Cor. 13:11).
(f) The full depth of God’s being, is expressed in the statement: God is love
(1 Jn. 4:8). His — love embraces the lost world which has turned away from him.
It is the decisive reason for his saving and redeeming activity. He has proved his
love by giving up his Son to death in order that all who believe on him may have
eternal life (Jn. 3:16). Above all his love is for the individual believer; God loved
us (1 Jn. 4:10); we are the beloved of God (Col. 3:12).
All real love has its origin in God (1 Jn. 4:7). Whoever does not love has not
known God (1 Jn. 4:8). The love of God is poured out in our hearts through the
Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). It is the highest spiritual — gift, without which all the
other charismata are meaningless (1 Cor. 13).
As God of love, God is rich in — goodness, forbearance and patience (Rom.
2:4). Tit. 3:4 speaks of the goodness and kindness of God towards men, using Hel.
language associated with the solemn courtly style for the Hel. ruler and frequently
discussed by philosophers (cf. C. Spicg, Les Epitres Pastorales, 1947, 275 f.).
5. God and Christ. The uniqueness of —> Jesus Christ as the — Son of God is
most fully developed in Jn. and the epistles. He was “‘descended from — David
according to the — flesh” (Rom. 1:3; cf. Matt. 1:1-17; Lk. 3:23-38; Acts 2:30;
2 Tim. 2:8; and cf. Mk. 12:35f. par. Matt. 22:21, Lk. 20:41). And he was
“designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resur-
rection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:4). Perhaps the correct
meaning here is: ““whom God decreed Son of God with power .. . through resur-
rection...’ (cf. M. Black, Romans, 1973, 36). The allusion is to the divine decree of
Ps. 2:6 ff. (cf. L. C. Allen, ‘““The Old Testament Background of prohorizein in the
New Testament,” N7S 17, 1970-71, 104 ff.; see also on this passage M. E. Bois-
mard, ‘“‘Constitué Fils de Dieu,’’ RB 40, 1953, 5-17; E. Schweizer, “Rom. 1:3 f.
und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus,” EvTh 15, 1955,
563-71; E. Linnemann, “Tradition und Interpretation in Rom. 1:3 ff.,” Ev7Th 31,
1971, 264-75; and for patristic interpretations M. F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle:
The Interpretation of St Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church, 1967, 80 f.). According
to the developed christology of Jn. 1:1, he existed already before his earthly existence
as the divine — Word (/ogos) with God. Thus he comes from God (Jn. 3:2; 13:3;
16:27 f.). It was God himself who sent him into the world at the time that he had
determined to carry out his saving purposes among men (Gal. 4:4 f.). Therefore
he comes with divine authority; God is with him (Jn. 3:2). He is the image of the
invisible God (Col. 1:15); in him the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col.
2:9). Because he has come from God, he alone is capable of bringing an authentic
message from God (Jn. 1:18). Thus he is the only true and trustworthy revealer.
He and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30; 14:10; 17:11, 21). Therefore, whoever sees
him sees God (Jn. 12:45; 14:9).
(b) There is not only a oneness of being shown by God and Jesus Christ, but
also a complete harmony in speech and action. The words which Jesus speaks are
words he has heard from the Father (Jn. 14:10); the works he performs are the
works of God (Jn. 9:4). They serve to reveal the divine glory and therefore to
glorify God (Jn. 17:4). This is expressed particularly in Jesus’ words of self-
disclosure in statements using divine — “I am” formulae (eg6 eimi) which in the
79
GoD
OT are self-revelations of God himself. He is the — light (Jn. 8:12; cf. 1:4, 8 f.;
9:5; 12:35), > life (In. 14:6; cf. 31:5f.; 10:10 ff.; 28; 17:2 f.; 20:31), > truth
(14:6; cf. 1:14, 17; 4:23 f.; 8:32), the living > bread (Jn. 6:48; cf. vv. 51 ff., 63),
—> water (Jn. 4:13 ff.; cf. 6:35; 7:38), and the only way to God (Jn. 14:6; cf. 10:9).
(On the background and significance of these terms see C. H. Dodd, The Interpre-
tation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953; and the commentaries on John by R. Schnacken-
burg, I, 1968; R. E. Brown, I, 1966, II, 1971; B. Lindars, 1972; and L. Morris,
1972.) In Rev., too, there occur divine I-am formulae like, “‘I am the first and the
last,’ which come now from the mouth of God and now from that of the eternal
Christ (Rev. 1:8, 17; 21:6; 22:13). It is clear that in the NT belief in God is most
closely bound up with belief in Christ. The fate of men before God is decided by
their position in relation to Christ.
(c) But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father
does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his pre-
existent being was in the — form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal
with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto
death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). He is the mediator, but not the originator, of salva-
tion (2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:15), the + lamb of God who bears the sins
of the world (Jn. 1:36). After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed
been raised to the right — hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) and invested with
the honour of the heavenly Kyrios, > Lord (Phil. 2:9 f.). But he is still not made
equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordi-
nate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). This is true also of his position as eternal high —
priest in the heavenly sanctuary according to Heb. (Heb. 9:24; 10:12 f.; cf. Ps.
110:1). He represents us before God (cf. also Rom. 8:34). If in Rev. 1:13 ff. the
appearance of the heavenly son of man is described with features from the picture
of the “Ancient of Days’ (God) of Dan. 7, this is not to say that Christ is equal
with God. In Rev. a distinction is always made between God and the “‘Lamb”’
(cf. Rev. 5:6 ff.; + Like).
6. Christ as God. A few NT texts raise the question whether the Son of God is
also called God.
(a) Rom. 9:5 is disputed. After Paul has expounded the position of Israel in
salvation history and has emphasized as an especial advantage the fact that Christ,
according to the flesh, stems from this people, he adds a relative clause, which runs
lit. “‘who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.” It would be easy, and linguistic-
ally perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read,
“Christ who 1s God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be
equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for
the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur any-
where else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a
doxology directed to God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul.
Overwhelmed by God’s dealings with Israel, Paul concludes with an ascription of
praise to God. The translation would then read, ‘““The one who is God over all be
blessed for ever. Amen.” or alternatively, “God who is over all be blessed for ever.
Amen.” ({Ed.] See further M. Black, Romans, 1973, 130; B. M. Metzger, ‘“The
Punctuation of Rom. 9:5”’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit
in the New Testament. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, 1973, 95-112;
80
GoD
W. L. Lorimer, NTS 13, 1966-67, 385 f.; H.-W. Bartsch, ““R6m. 9:5 und 1 Clem.
32:4: eine notwendige Konjektur im RO6merbrief,” ThZ 21, 1965, 401-9; H. M.
Faccio, De Divinitate Christi iuxta S. Paulum: Rom. 9:5, 1945; for patristic inter-
pretations M. F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St Paul’s Epistles
in the Early Church, 1967, 83 ff.; and J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, II,
1965, 245-8. Murray claims that the passage cannot be treated as a doxology to
God the Father, since it does not follow the form of doxologies elsewhere in the
LXX and the NT. The application of theos to Christ suits the context and could
be regarded as the culmination of a sequence of privileges given to Israel which
Paul is enumerating. Moreover, comparable assertions of divinity may be found
in 2 Thess. 1:12; Tit. 2:13; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; and 2 Cor. 3:17. The assertion of
Christ’s Lordship is in accord with Paul’s teaching elsewhere [cf. Rom. 1:4; 14:9;
Eph. 1:20, 23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:18 f.; cf. also Matt. 28:18; Jn. 3:35; Acts 2:36;
Heb. 1:2 ff.; 8:1; 1 Pet. 3:22]. Hence, Murray argues that ““God blessed for ever-
more”’ stands in apposition to Christ.)
(b) Several passages in Jn. contain ascriptions of divinity. Jn. 1:1 (RSV) declares:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God [kai theos én ho logos].’’ ({Ed.] The fact that there is no definite article before
theos here has been taken to imply that the Word may be understood as being
some kind of divine being but not in the fullest sense of the term. Such views have
been put forward from Origen [Commentary on Jn. 2, 2], whose views were taken
up by the Arians in the fourth century, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses today. The
passage is rendered by the NEB: ‘‘what God was, the Word was.” J. A. T. Robin-
son appealed to it in support of his plea for a restatement of orthodox christology
[ Honest to God, 1963, 71; cf. The Human Face of God, 1973, 182; and the discussion
by E. D. Freed, “Honest to John,” ExpT 75, 1963-64, 61 ff.]. R. E. Brown con-
siders the NEB rendering more accurate than saying simply that the Word was
“divine” [The Gospel according to John, I, 1966, 5]. In any case, the adj. for “divine”
is theios, whereas it is the noun theos that is used here. R. E. Brown points out that
there are instances of nouns with the definite article after the vb. “to be”’ in Jn. (e.g.
11:25; 14:6), implying that we might expect the article here if Jn. had meant to
say that “the word was God.’ On the other hand, the passage conforms to the
pattern that in the NT definite nouns which precede the vb. regularly lack the
article [cf. E. C. Colwell, JBL 52, 1933, 12-21; Funk, 143, §273; Moule, 116].
Hence, the RSV translation would be the correct one. For further discussion see
B. M. Metzger, ExpT 63, 1951-52, 125f.; J. G. Griffiths, ExpT 62, 1950-51,
314 ff.; N. Turner, /nsights, 17; E. M. Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel,
1961, 48 f.; L. Morris, op. cit., 77. On the patristic interpretation of Jn. generally
see M. F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the
Early Church, 1960; and F.-M. Braun, Jean le Théologien, I-III, 1959-66.)
On monogenés see above 3 (c). In Jn. 1:18 a number of very good MSS read
monogenés theos (“the only God’? RSVmg) instead of ho monogenés hyios (“the only
Son” RSV). The unusualness of such a reading is regarded by some as grounds for
accepting its authenticity (cf. L. Morris, op. cit., 113 f.). If so, it would be a further
affirmation of the deity of the Word.
Jn. 20:28 contains the unique affirmation of Thomas addressing the Risen Christ
as God: ‘‘My Lord and my God [ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou].’”’ The statement
81
GoD
marks the climax of the Gospel. God has become visible for Thomas in the form of
Jesus. The climax of Johannine teaching occurs in the confessional formula of 1 Jn.
5:20 which asserts the full identity of essence of Christ and God: ““And we know
that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who
is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God
and eternal life’ (RSV). This gives a lit. reproduction of the Gk. words. An
alternative translation is: ‘““This [Christ] is the true one, God and eternal life.”
(c) This is the nearest that the NT comes to asserting the full identity of Christ
with God. Tit. 2:13 speaks of ‘‘awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the
glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (RSV, cf. RSV mg. “‘of the great
God and our Saviour’’). Hesitation has been expressed about appealing to this
text as such an instance. “The application of the formula ‘‘great God”’ to Jesus
which was a title for God firmly rooted in late Judaism would be completely
unique in the New Testament” (J. Jeremias, N7.D 9, 58). Paul’s teaching in Phil.
2:6 speaks against complete equation, when it draws a distinction in the words,
‘though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be
grasped.” E. Stauffer is doubtless correct when he writes: ‘““The Christology of the
NT is carried to its logical conclusion with the thorough-going designation of Christ
as theos” (TDNT III 106). J. Schneider
(d) Jesus’ cry of desolation is recorded in Matt. 27:46 and Mk. 15:34. Both give
a version of Jesus’ words in the original language and add their own translation:
“eli éli lema sabachtani? that is ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?’ ”’ (Matt.); ‘‘eloi eldi lama sabachthani which means, ‘My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?’ ”’ (Mk.). The cry corresponds to the opening words of
Ps. 22 which in the MT reads ’é/i ’élf lamdah “‘zabtani. Mk. appears to have written
the Aram. ’e/di. The bystanders evidently took it to be a call to — Elijah who was
taken up to heaven (2 Ki. 2:9-12) and was believed to rescue the righteous in
distress (SB IV, 2, 76 ff.).
From the earliest times the cry has been felt to raise problems for christology.
These are reflected in the MSS variants and the version of Gos. Pet 5:19: “My
power, O power, thou hast forsaken me!” (cf. K. Stendahl, The School of St.
Matthew, 19677, 83-7; Henn.-Schn., I, 184). It is felt that the words imply an
abandonment by God which is incompatible with belief in his divinity, and a lack
of trust on Jesus’ part. Nevertheless, Matt. and Mk. did not shirk to record it. The
cry expresses a sense of utter desolation, such as Jesus had not even experienced on
occasions of temptation, rejection and in Gethsamene. His faithfulness to God’s
will had led him to the point where that will had to be done without the conscious
awareness of God’s presence. This was the experience of the Psalmist. And in
recording the cry the evangelists may well have seen in it further fulfilment of Ps.
22 (cf. Matt. 27:35; Mk. 15:24; Lk. 23:34; Jn. 19:25 with Ps. 22:18; and Matt.
27:39, 43; Mk. 15:29; Lk. 23:35 with Ps. 22:7 f.; cf. also Heb. 2:12 with Ps. 22:22;
see further B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, 89-93; H. Gese, “‘Psalm
22 und das Neue Testament’’, Z7K 65, 1968, 1-22). The poignancy of the parallels and
the solemnity of the narrative may have been too great for the evangelists to pause
to speak of — fulfilment. Jesus’ cry is all the more poignant in view of the taunt (also
made to the Psalmist): he trusts in God, let God deliver him. The suggestion that the
82
GoD
cry was an interpretation put into the mouth of Jesus’ perhaps in the light of the
Ps. (cf. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1963, 313) raises more
problems than it solves, for it is incredible that the church would have invented an
utterance which appears to go back on all that Jesus had taught. The cry reveals
the anguish felt by Jesus in being utterly rejected by friend and foe alike and in
dying the most excruciating death. At the same time we may say with C. E. B.
Cranfield that the cry is to be understood in the light of Mk. 14:36 (and par. Matt.
26:39; Lk. 22:42; Jn. 12:27) and the Pauline interpretation of Jesus’ death in 2
Cor. 5:21 and Gal. 3:13. ‘““The burden of the world’s sin, his complete self-identi-
fication with sinners, involved not merely a felt, but a real, abandonment by his
Father” (The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 1963, 458).
The parallels with Ps. 22 may, however, be pursued even further. G. Dalman
has suggested that for the Jews the opening words were recognized as an effective
prayer for help in the light of the latter part of the Ps. (Jesus-Jeshua, 1929, 206).
The Psalmist survives his immediate desolation to praise God in the congregation
(v. 22; cf. Heb. 2:12). All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord
(v. 27). Dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. (v. 28).
Posterity shall serve him and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn
(vv. 30 f.). If the earlier part of the Ps. may be seen as being fulfilled in Jesus’ death,
the latter may be said to find fulfilment in the revelation of the risen Christ in the
great commission to evangelize (Matt. 28 :16—20). C. Brown
7. God and the Church. The community of believers is called the ekklésia tou
theou (Acts 20:28; 2 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13;
1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Tim. 3:5, 15; + Church). It consists of those chosen
by God and called to be saints (Rom. 1:7; cf. the opening address of most of Paul’s
epistles) and who have received all the gifts of salvation and grace. They have peace
with God (Rom. 5:1), for they have been reconciled through Christ (2 Cor. 5:18).
As the beginning of God’s new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) they are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10). God works in them both to
will and to accomplish (Phil. 2:13), and gives them assurance of the completion of
their salvation (Rom. 5:2, Phil. 3:21). At the return of Christ he will give life to
their mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11) and a share in his glory and in eternal life.
(b) The church is the > temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21);
God’s holy building into which all believers are placed as living stones (1 Pet. 2:4);
the dwelling of God in the Spirit in which Christians are members of God’s
household (Eph. 2:19, 21). It is the new people of God (1 Pet. 2:9) which forms the
— body of Christ in which believers have a share in the plérdéma, the fullness of the
being of God and Christ (Col. 2:10; Eph. 1:23; —> Fullness, art. plérod). The
community stands under God’s protection. It is hidden in him, for God is on its
side (Rom. 8:31). Therefore no power, whatever it may be called, is capable of
separating it from God’s love.
Paul emphasized strongly that the ekklésia of God consists of Jews and Gentiles.
This is because Christ has reconciled Jews and Gentiles to God in one body through
the — cross. Whoever receives the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and believes
in Christ has free access to the Father (Eph. 2:18). In God’s people of the new
— covenant racial and national differences are removed.
83
GOD
8. The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity.
“The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the
other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus,
i.e. as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ‘These two express declarations,
which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of the Church
doctrine of the Trinity” (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also lacks such terms as
trinity (Lat. trinitas which was coined by Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3; 11; 12
etc.) and homoousios which featured in the Creed of Nicea (325) to denote that
Christ was of the same substance as the Father (cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian
Doctrines, 1968+, 113, 233-7). But the NT does contain the fixed, three-part formula
of 2 Cor. 13:13 (EVV 14) in which God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit are
mentioned together (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4 ff.). The Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit
occurs only in the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19. The later addition, 1 Jn. 5:8
(in Lat. texts from the 6th cent.), contains the triad, the Father, the Word and the
Holy Spirit (cf. E. Stauffer, 7DNT III 108 f.). An extension of the triadic form in
which, however, the important element is “the one God,” “‘the one Lord” and “‘the
one Spirit,’ appears in Eph. 4:4 ff. Gal. 4:4 ff. does not, strictly speaking, present
a formula. It sets out the action of God in salvation history, placing God, Christ
and the Holy Spirit in their right relationship: God first sends the Son and then
the Spirit of his Son to continue the work of Jesus on earth.
On the other hand, God and Christ especially are closely connected in two-part
formulae: ‘‘one God, the Father. . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ’’ (1 Cor. 8:6). “one
God... and one mediator between God and men”’ (1 Tim. 2:5). In this connection
Matt. 23:8-10 must also be mentioned, where Jesus draws the disciples’ attention
to the fact that they have one master (himself) and one God in heaven. In all these
statements the two facts, that God and Christ belong together and_that they are
distinct, are equally stressed, with the precedence in every case due to God, the
Father, who stands above Christ. (On the formulae see E. Stauffer, New Testament
Theology, 1955, 235-57, J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°, 6-29; V. F.
Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1963.)
A close relationship exists also between Christ and the Holy — Spirit. Thus
Paul can say outright that the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). In John’s Gospel the
Holy Spirit (the Paraclete,-» Advocate) appears with “certain independence”’
(E. Stauffer, TDNT III 107). But in his work he is bound to the exalted Christ
(Jn. 16:14; “He will take what is mine’’). Christ and the Holy Spirit are in an inter-
changeable relationship. But even here there is no strict, dogmatic assertion.
Although the Spirit is distinguished from Christ and subordinated to him, it can
be said in |] Jn. 2:1 that Christ is the Paraclete with the Father. All this underlines
the point that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity
such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church. (For dis-
cussions of the Trinity in the NT see L. Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 1943,
38-84; A. E. J. Rawlinson, ed., Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, 1933;
Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 339-560; G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine
of the Trinity, 1953; A. W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament,
1962.)
J. Schneider
84
GOD
9. Pagan Deities. It is unlikely that the average Greek and Roman took the old
gods and goddesses seriously, but tradition and superstition led people to altars,
shrines and images. The multiplicity of altars at Athens moved Paul to describe the
Athenians as deisidaimonesterous (Acts 17:22), a comparative form compounded
from deido (fear) and daimon (a deity or demon). The adj. deisidaimon often means
superstitious. But Paul evidently intended it in a more positive sense, i.e. “quite
religious’ (cf. the noun deisidaimonia which can mean superstition, fear or rever-
ence for the divinity in a good sense, and religion [cf. Arndt. 172]).
The main Gk. pantheon, with the Roman equivalents given in brackets, was:
Zeus (Jupiter), Hera (Juno), Apollo (Apollo or Phoebus), Ares (Mars), Poseidon
(Neptune), Aphrodite (Venus), Hermes (Mercury), Athene (Minerva), Artemis
(Diana), Hades or Pluto (Pluto or Orcus).
In 1 Cor. 10:20 Paul equated pagan deities with demons, but in addressing the
intelligent Athenians, he quoted with approval Epimenides, Aratus, Phaenomena
5, and Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 4 (cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1951,
338 f.; see also above, section 4 (b)). “Yet he is not far from each one of us, for
‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have
said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring’”’ (Acts 17:27 f.). The poets are actually
praising Zeus, but Paul makes it clear that he treats the quotations as referring to
their highest conception of the supreme God, or rather their non-conception, the
Unknown God, of whom he proceeded to speak.
The following Greek deities are named in the NT. (1) Zeus and Hermes. At
Lystra, after an outstanding miracle of healing, Barnabas and Paul were treated
as heavenly visitants, the dignified Barnabas as Zeus and Paul, the talker, as
Hermes (Acts 14:8-18). (i1) Ares. At Athens Paul was taken to the Areopagus, or
Hill of Ares, where speakers were allowed to hold forth, as at Hyde Park Corner
in London, and where the Athenian Council met (Acts 17:19). (ii) Artemis. Her
temple at Ephesus was one of the wonders of the world, and Paul’s successful
preaching roused the makers of shrine souvenirs (Acts 19:21-41). The Ephesian
Artemis was only loosely identified with Artemis the huntress. Statues and descrip-
tions show that she was the great Mother Goddess. (iv) Hades. In classical Gk. the
god’s name came to stand for his kingdom of the underworld, although it was
quite common to use the expression en Hadou (gen. instead of dat.), meaning “‘in the
house of Hades.” In the NT the word is used of the place or state only (e.g. [en t6
Hadeé] Lk. 16:23; — Hell, art. hades).
Two Canaanite gods appear in quotations from the OT: Baal (Rom. 11:4; 1 Ki.
19:18) and Moloch (Acts 7:43; Amos 5:26). J. Stafford Wright
10. There are several compound words in the NT which indicate an actual or
potential link with God. (i) theosebeia (1 Tim. 2:10) means reverence for God, piety,
religion. theosebés (Jn. 9:31) means God-fearing, devout, a worshipper of God.
The vb. theosebed, to worship God, does not occur in the NT but is found in Ep.
Diog. 3:1 in early Christian literature. In all these forms the root is from the vb.
sebd, worship or reverence, plus theos, God (— Godliness, art. sebomai). Proselytes
were sometimes referred to as sebomenoi [ton theon] (e.g. Acts 13:43; 18:7). These
God-fearers were Gentiles who accepted the Jewish way of life in general, but did
85
GoD
not bind themselves to keep all the ritual details of the > law, in particular —
circumcision (—> Conversion, art. prosélytos). (ii) theostygés (Rom. 1:30) is a
compound from stygeo, to hate, plus theos. In cl. Gk. it means God-hated or God
forsaken. But in its sole NT occurrence an active meaning appears necessary, i.e.
God-hating, haters of God (RSV). (iii) Theophilos, Theophilus, is derived from
philed, to love. Its meaning is either “‘dear to God’’, as generally in cl. Gk., or
“lover of God.” In the NT it occurs only in Lk. 1:3 and Acts 1:1 as the name of
the person for whom Luke writes. It is almost certainly a proper name, perhaps a
pseudonym for some well-known person, but it could stand for any Christian
reader (for discussion and literature see F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1951,
65 f.; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 136f.). (iv) theios occurs 3
times in the NT. With the art., to theion means the Deity (Acts 17:29). As an adj.,
it means divine and is used with power and nature in 2 Pet. 1:3 f. (v) theiotés (Rom.
1:20) means deity: God’s “invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity
has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (see above, 4 (b)).
theotés, deity, divinity (Col. 2:9), is a stronger word and is used as an abstract
noun for theos in connection with the incarnation: “‘For in him the whole fulness
of deity dwells bodily.” By contrast the weaker words to theion (Acts 17:29) and
theiotés (Rom. 1:20) speak of the Gentile awareness of the deity. (See further
H. S. Nash, theiotés-theotés, JBL 18, 1899, 1-34; Moulton-Milligan, 286 ff.; and
Arndt, 354, 357 ff. for the terms discussed above.) J. Stafford Wright
| Eupavovyd ’Eupavovy dA (Emmanouel), Emmanuel.
OT The name Emmanuel which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ““God [is]
with us” (Heb. ‘immanii él). In the context of the times of Isaiah and King
Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the
danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass “‘before the child
knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.” Thus, the child and its name is a
sign of God’s gracious, saving presence among his people. The name can have
either a minimum or a maximum significance. It could be a general statement that
the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is
upon us. Or it could be a divine name meaning that God’s presence with us is to
be found in the child. In justification of the latter interpretation is the name of the
one whom we may fairly regard as the same child in Isa. 9:6. One of his names
here is ’él gibb6ér which, in the light of its application to Yahweh himself in 10:21,
means Mighty God. (See further E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, I, 1965, 283-94,
306 f., 335 ff.; O. Kaiser, Zsaiah 1-12, 1972, 96-106; J. Lindblom, A Study on the
Immanuel Section of Isaiah, 1958 reprint; J. A. Motyer, “Context and Content in
the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14,” TB 21, 1970, 118-25.)
NI Matt. 1:23 sees the angel’s promise to Joseph of the son conceived in Mary by ©
the Holy Spirit, who is to be called ‘“‘Jesus, for he will save his people from ~
their sins,”’ as a fulfilment of Isa. 7:14. The quotation corresponds largely with the »
LXX, though the LXX does not give a translation of the name to indicate its |
significance. It does not necessarily mean that a virgin birth was prophesied, for ©
86
GoD
parthenos could be used of others than virgins (e.g. Gen. 34:3), and similarly the
Heb. ‘almaéh could mean a young woman married or single (Gen. 24:43; Exod.
2:8; Pss. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Cant. 1:3; 6:8). On the question of the virgin
birth see J. Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1907; J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth
of Christ, [1930] 1958; T. Boslooper, The Virgin Birth, 1962; R. E. Brown, The
Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, 1973. This question rests
on the interpretation of verses other than Matt. 1:23. The name Emmanuel is
not applied to Jesus elsewhere in the NT. The point of the present passage is to see
in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first
Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child. But
whereas the earlier event in Isaiah’s day was regarded at the time as having decisive
significance, in the light of the coming of Jesus it proves to be merely the anticipa-
tion of the really decisive saving act and presence of God. For Matt.’s concept of
fulfilment — Fullness, art. plérod, NT 1 (c). See also on this passage W. C. van
Unnik, ‘““Dominus Vobiscum’’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed, New Testament Essays:
Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959, 270-305.
One may link Matt.’s quotation, written in the light of the disciples’ experience
of Jesus Christ, with Lk. 1:35, where the unique act of the Holy Spirit means that
the child will be “‘the Son of God.’’ Thus “‘“God with us” is to be taken in a similar
way. The child will be God come to earth. The conception by the Holy Spirit
draws attention to the role of God in the birth and life of Jesus.
J. Stafford Wright, C. Brown
On God in the OT and in the ancient world:
(a). W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1956; From Stone Age to Christianity,
1957; and Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 1968; A. Alt, “The God of the Fathers”, in Essays
on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966, 1-77; L. R. Bailey, “Israelite ’e] Sadday and
Amorite bél sadé”’, JBL 87, 1968, 434-38; T. Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek,
1960; but see also the discussion of Boman’s metholodogy in J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical
Language, 1961; M. Buber, The Prophetic Faith, 1960; J. S. Chesnut, The Old Testament Under-
standing of God, 1968; R. E. Clements, God and Temple, 1965; A. Deissler, ““God”’, EBT I
298-309; R. C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient Israel 1968; W. Eichrodt, Theology of
the Old Testament, I-II, 1961-67; O. Eissfeldt, “‘ ‘My God’ in the Old Testament”, EQ 19, 1947,
7 ff.; M. Eliade, From Primitives to Zen, 1967; J. Ferguson, The Religion of the Roman Empire, 1974? ;
J. Goldingay, “‘ ‘That You May Know that Yahweh is God’: A Study in the Relationship between
Theology and Historical Truth in the Old Testament’, TB 23, 1972, 58-93; W. L. Holladay,
‘** “Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth’: A Study in Tradition Criticism’’, JBL 91, 1972, 321-37;
J. P. Hyatt, ‘“Was Yahweh Originally a Creator Deity?’, JBL 86, 1967, 369 ff.; B. van Iersel, The
Bible on the Living God, 1965; E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 1964°; E. O. James, The
Ancient Gods, 1960; N. B. Johnson, Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Study in the
Jewish Conception of God, 1948; A. Jukes, The Names of God in Holy Scripture, (1888) 1967; G. A.
F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, 1959; C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability
of Yahweh in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental Series 5, 1966; T. Ling, A History of Religion
East and West, 1968; G. van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation: A Study in Pheno-
menology, 19642; H. Miskotte, When the Gods are Silent, 1967; J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the
Divine Name, 1959; and ‘‘Context and Contents in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14’, TB 21, 1970,
118-25; A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, (1927) 1937; M. Noth, ““God, King and
Nation’’, in The Laws the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 145-78; J. Barton Payne, The Theology
of the Older Testament, 1962, 120-76; J. Plastras, The God of Exodus, 1966; G. von Rad, Old
Testament Theology, I, 1962, 203-19; H. Ringgren and A. V. Strom, Religions of Mankind: Yesterday
and Today, 1967; H. H. Rowley, ‘“‘The Nature of God’’, in The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old
Testament Thought, 1956, 48-75; and The Religion of Israel, 1956; H. J. Schoeps, The Jewish-
Christian Argument: A History of Theologies in Conflict, 1963; N. Smart, The Religious Experience
87
GoD
of Mankind, 1969; R. A. Stewart, Rabbinic Theology, 1961, 18-46; R. de Vaux, “The Revelation of
the Divine Name YHWH”,, in J. 1. Durham and J. R. Porter, eds., Proclamation and Presence: Old
Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, 1970, 48-75; Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline
Theology of the Old Testament, 1958, 128-98; H. J. Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocry-
pha and Apocalyptic Literature, 1915; H. M. Wolf, ‘‘A Solution to the Immanuel Prophecy in Isaiah
7:14-8:22”, JBL 91, 1972, 449-56; R. C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, 1961.
(b). K. L. Bellon, ““Der Sinn der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Gottesidee’”’, Zeitschrift fiir
Missionswissenschaft 38, 1954, 318 ff.; H. A. Brongers, ““Die Wendung b*sém jhwh im Alten
Testament”, ZAW 77, 1965, 1ff.; M. Buber, ‘‘Die Gotter der V6lker und Gott”, Festschrift for O.
Michel, 1963, 44-57; E. L. Dietrich, ‘‘Die rabbinische Kritik an Gott’’, ZRGG 7, 1955, 193 ff.; O.
Eissfeldt, Vom Werden der biblischen Gottesanschauung, 19267; and “‘Jahwe, der Gott der Vater’’,
TLZ 88, 1963, 481-90; A. Gelin, ‘“Le monothéisme d’Israel”, Lumiére et Vie 29, 1956, 9-26; V.
Hamp, ‘‘Monotheismus im Alten Testament’, Sacra Pagina 1, 1959, 44-56; J. Hempel, Gott und
Mensch im Alten Testament, BWANT III, 2, 19362; W. Jaeger, Die Theologie der friihen griechischen
Denker, 1953; J. Jeremias, Theophanie. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlicher Gattung, Wissen-
schaftliche Monographien 10, 1965; R. Knieriem, ‘“‘Das erste Gebot’’, ZAW 77, 1965, 20 ff.; H.-J.
Kraus, “‘Der lebendige Gott’, Biblisch-theologische Autsatze, 1972, 1-36; W. F. Otto, Die
altgriechische Gottesidee, 1926; and Die Gétter Griechenlands, 19342; H. D. Preuss, Jahweglaube
und Zukunftserwartung, BWANT 87, 1968; G. von Rad, Gottes Wirken in Israel: Vortrage zum
Alten Testament, 1974; B. Renaud, Je suis un Dieu jaloux, 1963; R. Rendtorff, ““El, Baal und Jahwe.
Erwagungen zum Verhialtnis von kanaanitischer und israelitischer Religion’. ZAW 78 Neue
Folge 37, 227 ff.; H. Schrade, Das verborgene Gottesbild und Gottesvorstellung in Israel und
im Alten Orient, 1949; H. Seebass, Der Erzvater Israel und die Einfiihrung der Jahweverehrung
in Kanaan, 1966; N. S6derblom, Das Werden des Gottesglaubens, 19267; C. Steuernagel, ‘“Jahwe
und die Vatergotter” in Festschrift for G. Beer, 1935; U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Der Glaube
der Hellenen, 1, 19557; H. Wildberger, ‘“‘Das Abbild Gottes, Gen. 1, 26-30”, ThZ 21, 1965, 481 ff.
On God in the NT:
(a). A. W. Argyle, God in the New Testament, 1965; R. M. Grant, The Early Christian Doctrine
of God, 1966; R. G. Crawford, “‘Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Scriptural ?”’, SJT 20, 1967, 282-94;
D. A. Hagner, “‘The Vision of God in Philo and John: A Comparative Study’, Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 142, 1971, 81-93; H. Kleinknecht, G. Quell, E. Stauffer and K. G.
Kuhn, theos, TDNT III 65-123; G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the
Trinity (SJT Occasional Papers No. 1), 1953; J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, 1967; T. W. Man-
son, The Teaching of Jesus, 1935?, 89-170; H. W. Montefiore, ““God as Father in the Synoptic
Gospels”, NTS 3, 1956-7, 1-11; K. Rahner, ‘“Theos in the New Testament’’, Theological Investiga-
tions, I, 1965", 79-148; J. A. Sanders, “Dissenting Deities and Philippians 2:1-11;” JBL 88, 1969,
279-90; R. Schnackenburg, ‘“‘God”’, EBT I 309-16; E. Schweizer, ‘‘What is Meant by ‘God’ ?’,
Interpretation 21, 1967, 421-34; H. F. D. Sparks, ““The Doctrine of Divine Fatherhood in the
Gospels’, in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot,
1955, 241-62; W. C. van Unnik, ‘“‘Dominus Vobiscum’’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed., New Testament
Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959, 270-305; A. W. Wainwright, ““The Confession
‘Jesus is God’ in the New Testament’’, S/T 10, 1957, 274-99; and The Trinity in the New Testament,
1962.
(b). H. Braun, Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, 1967"; G. Delling,
‘‘Partizipiale Gottespradikationen in den Briefen des Neuen Testaments’’, St7h 17, 1963, 1-59;
J. Feiner and M. Lohrer, eds., Mysterium Salutis, I], 1967; W. G. Kimmel, “Die Gottesver-
kiindigung Jesu und der Gottesgedanke des Spatjudentums’’, Judaica 1, 1945, 40-68, reprinted in
Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 107-25; J. Leipoldt, Das Gotteserlebnis Jesu im Lichte der
vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte, 1927; W. Marchel, Abba, Vater!, 1963; C. Miller, Gottes
Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk. Eine Untersuchung zu Rom. 9-11, FRLANT 86, 1964; T. Miller,
Gottesbild und Gottesbeziehung im Neuen Testament, 1966; E. Pax, ““Die Epiphanie Gottes im
Neuen Testament’, BuK 19, 1964, 106 ff.; E. Rohde, ‘‘Gottesglaube und Kyriosglaube bei Paulus’’,
ZNW 22, 1923, 43 ff.
God in Systematic Theology:
(a). J. Baillie, Our Knowledge of God, 1939; K. Barth, CD, I, 1-2, The Doctrine of the Word of
God; CD Il, 1-3, The Doctrine of God; H. Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, 1951; L. Berkhof,
88
GOD
Systematic Theology, 1938; 19-178; E. Brunner, Dogmatics, I, The Christian Doctrine of God, 1949;
J. Daniélou, God and Us, 1967; E. Farley, The Transcendence of God, 1962; E. J. Fortman, The
Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, 1972; R. T. France, The Living God,
1970; R. S. Franks, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 1953; H. Gollwitzer, The Existence of God as
Confessed by Faith, 1965; R. P. C. Hanson, The Attractiveness of God: Essays in Christian Doctrine,
1973; C. F. H. Henry, ““God’’, ZPEB II 742-58; E. Hill, ““Our Knowledge of the Trinity”, SJT 27,
1974, 1-11; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1, reprint 1960, 191-482; L. Hodgson, The Doctrine
of the Trinity, 1943; J. R. Illingworth, Personality: Human and Divine, 1894; The Doctrine of the
Trinity Apologetically Considered, 1907; and Divine Transcendence, 1911; E. Jiingel, The Doctrine of
the Trinity, 1976; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°; Early Christian Doctrines, 1968;
and The Athanasian Creed, 1964; J. K. Mozley, The Impassibility of God: A Survey of Christian
Thought, 1926; and The Doctrine of God, 1928; J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 1973; W. Pannenberg,
Basic Questions in Theology, I-\IJ, 1970-73; L. G. Patterson, God and History in Early Christian
Thought, 1968; G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 1936; K. Rahner, The Trinity, 1970;
‘““Remarks on the Dogmatic Treatise ‘De Trinitate’ ”’, Theological Investigations, 1V, 1966, 77-102;
A. E. J. Rawlinson, ed., Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, 1928; C. C. Richardson, The
Doctrine of the Trinity, 1958; N. H. G. Robinson, “‘God’’, in A. Richardson, ed., A Dictionary of
Christian Theology, 1969, 137-46; and “‘Trinitarianism and Post-Barthian Theology’, JTS N. S.
20, 1969, 186-201; E. Schillebeeckx, God and Man, 1969; D. Sdlle, Christ the Representative: An
Essay in Theology after the ‘‘ Death of God’’, 1967; H. E. W. Turner, ‘“‘Trinity”, in A. Richardson,
op. cit., 345-51; B. B. Warfield, ‘“‘The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity’ and ‘‘The God of our
Fathers and the Lord Jesus Christ”, in Biblical and Theological Studies, 1952, 29-59 and 60-78;
A. C. Welch, The Trinity in Contemporary Theology, 1952; H. Zahrnt, The Question of God, 1966;
and What Kind of God? A Question of Faith, 1971.
(b). G. Aulén, Das christliche Gottesbild in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, 1930; K. H. Bernhardt,
‘“‘Fremde Gotter’, BHHW I 589 ff.; K. Goldammer et al., ‘“Gott’’, RGG? II 1701 ff.; H. Gollwitzer,
“Das Wort ‘‘Gott”’ in christlicher Theologie’’, TLZ 92, 1967, 161 ff.; J. Haeckel er al., ‘“‘Gott’’,
LTK IV 1070 ff.; H.-J. Iwand, Glauben und Wissen. Nachgelassene Werke, 1961, 27 ff.; E. Jacob
and W. Schmauch, ‘‘Gott’, BHHW I 585 ff.; W. Knevels, Die Wirklichkeit Gottes, 1964; W.
Kiinneth, Von Gott Reden ?, 1965; B. Lonergan, De Deo Trino, 1961; and Divinarum Personarum
Conceptionem Analogicam, 1957; F. Mildenberger, ‘‘Uberlegungen zum Gottesbegriff”, ZTK 62,
1965, 458 ff.; O. Ploger, W. Kasch and W. Wiesner, “‘“Gott, Gottesglaube”’, EKL I 1639 ff.; H. H.
Schrey, ‘“Zwischen Orthodoxie und Haresie. Die doppelte Verantwortung unseres Redens von
Gott’, Evangelische Kommentare, 1968, 250 ff.
On God in philosophy and philosophical theology:
J. Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece, 1908; T. J. J. Altizer and W. Hamilton, Radical
Theology and the Death of God, 1968; J. Barnes, The Ontological Argument, 1972; P. A. Bertocci,
The Person God Is, 1970; J. Bowker, The Sense of God, 1973; C. Brown, Philosophy and the
Christian Faith, 19717; S. C. Brown, Do Religious Claims Make Sense ? 1969; M. Buber, Eclipse
of God, 1952; R. Bultmann, ‘““What Does it Mean to Speak of God?” and “‘The Problem of
‘Natural Theology’ ” in Faith and Understanding: Collected Essays, 1969, 53-65 and 313-331;
D. R. Burrell, The Cosmological Arguments, 1967; J. Collins, God in Modern Philosophy, 1960;
M. Durrant, The Logical Status of God”, 1973; and Theology and Intelligibility, 1973; H. H. Farmer,
The World and God, 1935; A. M. Farrer, Finite and Infinite, 1943; F. Ferré, “Is Language about
God Fraudulent ?’’, SJT 12, 1959, 337-60; and Language, Logic and God, 1962; and Basic Modern
Philosophy of Religion, 1965; A. G. N. Flew, God and Philosophy, 1966; A. G. N. Flew and A.
MacIntyre, eds., New Essays in Philosophical Theology, 1955; E. Boyce Gibson, Theism and
Empiricism, 1970; K. Hamilton, God is Dead: The Anatomy of a Slogan, 1966; R. W. Hepburn,
Christianity and Paradox, 1958; J. Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 1963; Evil and the God of Love,
1966; Arguments for the Existence of God, 1970; God and the Universe of Faiths, 1973; J. Hick, ed.,
The Existence of God, 1964; J. Hick and A. McGill, eds., The Many-Faced Argument, 1968; W.
Hordern, Speaking of God: The Nature and Purpose of Theological Language, 1965; W. D.
Hudson, A Philosophical Approach to Religion, 1974; F. von Higel, The Reality of God and
Religion and Agnosticism, 1931; E. O. James, The Concept of Deity, 1950; D. Jenkins, Guide
to the Debate about God, 1966; A. Kenny, The Five Ways, 1969; R. H. King, The Meaning
of God, 1974; H. D. Lewis, Our Experience of God, 1959; B. Lonergan, Insight, 1957; Collection,
1967; Philosophy of God and Theology, 1974; and A Second Collection, 1975; J. Macquarrie,
89
GopD/GODLINESS
Principles of Christian Theology, 1966; God-Talk, 1967; Thinking about God, 1975; T. McPherson,
The Argument from Design, 1972; and Philosophy and Religious Belief, 1974; E. L. Mascall,
He Who Is, 1943; Existence and Analogy, 1949; The Secularisation of Christianity, 1965; and
The Openness of Being, 1971; W. 1. Matson, The Existence of God, 1965; W. R. Matthews, God in
Christian Thought and Experience, 1930; H. Meynell, God and the World, 1971; B. Mitchell, The
Justification of Religious Belief, 1973; B. Mitchell, ed., Faith and Logic, 1957; R. C. Neville,
God the Creator: On the Transcendence and Presence of God, 1968; S. M. Ogden, The Reality of
God, 1967; T. W. Ogletree, The “‘ Death of God” Controversy, 1968; J. Oman, The Natural and the
Supernatural, 1931; R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 1925; H. P. Owen, The Moral Argument for
Christian Theism, 1965; The Christian Knowledge of God, 1969; Concepts of Deity, 1971; and “‘God,
Concepts of” in P. Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ill 344-48; N. Pike, God and
Timelessness, 1970; N. Pittenger, God in Process, 1967; A. Plantinga, God and Other Minds: A
Study of the Rational Justification for Belief in God, 1967; and A. Plantinga, ed., The Ontological
Argument, 1968; A. S. Pringle-Pattison, The Idea of God in the Light of Recent Philosophy, 1920;
I. T. Ramsey, Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases, 1957; Christian
Empiricism, 1974; I. T. Ramsey, ed., Words about God, 1971; J. A. T. Robinson, Honest to God,
1963 (cf. D. L. Edwards, ed., The Honest to God Debate, 1963); and Exploration into God, 1967;
N. H. G. Robinson, ‘“‘The logical placing of the name ‘God’ ”’, S/T 24, 1971, 129-48; F. Schaeffer,
Escape from Reason, 1968; The God Who is There, 1968; and He is There and He is Not Silent, 1972;
F. Sontag, Divine Perfection, 1962; G. F. Stout, God and Nature, 1952; A. E. Taylor, ‘“Theism’’,
ERE XII 261-87; W. Temple, Nature, Man and God, 1934; F. R. Tennant, Philosophical Theology,
Il, The World, the Soul and God, 1937; P. Tillich, Systematic Theology, I, 1953; T. F. Torrance,
God and Rationality, 1971; I. Trethowan, The Basis of Belief, 1960; and Absolute Value: A Study
in Christian Theism, 1970; B. Tyrrell, Bernard Lonergan’s Philosophy of God, 1974; G. N. A. Vesey
et al., Talk of God: Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 1967-1968, 1969; K. Ward, The Concept
of God, 1974; C. C. J. Webb, Religion and Theism, 1934; V. White, God and the Unconscious, 1952;
and God the Unknown, and Other Essays, 1956. A. N. Whitehead, Religion in the Making, 1926;
and Process and Reality 1929.
Godliness, Piety
When faced with that which is awe-inspiring, sublime, or holy, man always keeps
a respectful distance and sometimes is seized with fear. The idea of distance is
basic to the sebomai group of words. They denote the appropriate attitude to that
which merits reverence, ranging from respect for one’s fellow-men and the rules of
society to reverence in public worship. On the other hand, the eulabés group of
words has more the character of caution and circumspection, and with this back-
ground came to be used for the normal religious attitude. The adj. sebomenos,
which became the regular term for non-Jews who attached themselves to the syna-
gogue, is discussed separately under —> Conversion (art. prosélytos).
| ebAdpera ebAdfeia (eulabeia), fear, awe, piety; ebAafyc (eulabés),
devout ; evAaféopuai (eulabeomai), to reverence, to be afraid.
CL The eulabeia word-group is found in profane Greek from the 3rd or 4th cent.
B.c. Originally it denoted caution, circumspection, discretion, and then in
later Gk. reverence (cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT II 751; Liddell-Scott, 720). The
meanings discretion, fear and reverence are found in early Christian literature
(Lampe, 567). From the basic meaning of eulabeia there evolved the additional idea
of fear, dread, anxiety.
oT In the LXX the vb. in particular occurs frequently. The original meaning of
eulabeomai, to take care, is clearly recognizable in Deut. 2:4; Sir. 18:27; 26:5.
90
GODLINESS
For that reason the word is not used for numinous terror (— Miracle). The
meaning to—>fear predominates in the LXX: Exod. 3:6; 1 Sam. 18:15, 29
(chiefly for the Heb. yaré’ or gir). It is frequently found in combination with
Phobeisthai from which it cannot be sharply distinguished (e.g. in Jer. 5:22; Mal.
3:16). But eulabeomai can also stand for the Heb. hasah; the appropriate transla-
tion is then to trust, to seek or take refuge, or to honour (Nah. 1:7; Zeph. 3:12 and
passim). eulabeomai thus approaches the idea of devoutness. The adj. eulabés,
devout, godly, is found with the v./. eusebés in Mic. 7:2; Sir. 11:17; Acts 22:12.
The noun eu/abeia is found in Jos. 22:24 and Wis. 17:8 with the meaning fear; in
Prov. 28:14 it means circumspection.
NT 1. eulabés occurs 4 times in the NT and means as in the LXX devout, God-
fearing. Thus in Lk. 2:25 Simeon is described as dikaios kai eulabés, righteous
and devout. In Acts 2:5 the witnesses from the Jewish diaspora on the day of
—» Pentecost are described as ‘“‘devout men’’, likewise in Acts 8:2 the men who
buried Stephen. In Acts 22:12 Ananias who was sent by the Lord to Saul is said to
have been anér eulabés according to the law, i.e. his Jewish piety revealed itself
in his keeping of the law.
2. eulabeia occurs in the NT only in Heb. 5:7 and 12:28. In Heb. 5:7 the old
translations differ in their understanding of the words eisakoustheis apo tés eulabeias.
The Old Latin translates a metu, i.e. heard (set free) from his fear. The Vulgate
rendering, however, is more likely: pro sua reverentia, Jesus was heard for his
devoutness, i.e. his obedience (v. 8). The raising of Jesus from the dead was God’s
answer to his Son’s supplication in the days of his flesh (cf. Phil. 2:8 ff.). In Heb.
12:28 the understanding of eulabeia as fear is suggested by v. 29 (cf. Phil. 2:12,
‘fear and trembling’’); but the rendering ‘“‘devoutness”’ is equally possible. The vb.
eulabeisthai is found in the NT only in Acts 23:10 (eulabétheis as an alternative to
Phobétheis, which has the same meaning but is better attested in the MSS; — fear),
and in Heb. 11:7, where eulabétheis denotes the attitude of -~ Noah while building
the ark; the translation “in the fear of God”? would seem to be correct.
W. Mundle
7, aéBopal (sebomai), to reverence, shrink back in fear,
| oéBopal | cee ; ise
worship; agefdCoual (sebazomai), show religious rever-
ence, worship; aéfaaua (sebasma), object of religious reverence, holy thing,
sanctuary; evaeféw (eusebed), reverence, be devout; evaéBeia (eusebeia), devout-
ness, piety, fear of God, religion; edvaefyc (eusebés), God-fearing, devout, pious;
JcocéfPeia (theosebeia), fear of God, reverence for God, devoutness; PJeocefyc
(theosebés), devout, God-fearing; acéBeia (asebeia), impiety, godlessness; adoefyc
(asebés), godless, impious; oguvoc (semnos), honourable, worthy of reverence,
venerable, holy; ae“votyc (Semnotés), honourableness, dignity, holiness.
cL |. The root seb- meant originally to step back from someone or something, to
maintain a distance. From this spatial meaning, as contexts often gave the
reason for maintaining a distance, there developed the metaphorical idea of tre-
pidation ranging from shame, through wonder, to something approaching fear.
| 9]
GODLINESS
This attitude is evoked by that whichis sublime and majestic, or by the risk of failure.
The act. sebd (post-Homeric) is rare; as a rule the mid. forms sebomai or seba-
zomai (from sebas) are used, The combination with eu (well, which in compounds
was used to imply abundance) rarely occurs in the case of the vb. (eusebed); on the
other hand the noun eusebeia and the adj. eusebés are frequently found. The word
theosebeia, which in form conveys the more restricted idea of one’s attitude to-
wards deities, does not in fact differ essentially either in use or meaning from
eusebeia. sebasma is an object of religious reverence, an idol; in the plur. it often
means the cult.
The negative, asebés, asebeia, is used to denote an outrage against someone,
whereby established laws and ordinances are broken.
semnos and semnotés denote that which is sublime, majestic, holy, evoking
reverence. The difference between these words and sebo is that they contain a
stronger aesthetic element: thus a royal throne, an ornament, or sublime music
can be so described. The adj. and the noun often denote the majesty of deity, but
sometimes also the solemnity, serious purpose and grandeur of a man.
2. Words deriving from the stem seb- are very frequent in Gk., and convey the
idea of devoutness and religiousness so characteristic of the Greeks. This devoutness
does not consist — as in the Bible — in a committed obedience to a single, personally-
conceived God; but rather in a holy trepidation, wonder, or admiration called
forth by a majesty in things, men or deities. Accordingly religious homage can be
paid to very different objects: one’s country, a landscape, dreams, parents, heroes,
the dead, etc. Later this basic idea fades, and sebomai can assume the meaning to
bless or congratulate.
For the Greeks those who are worthy of reverence are above all the members of
one’s own family (including one’s ancestors), the gods and the laws ordained by
them. In religious usage there is an easy transition from respect or honour to the
reverence of the cult. eusebeia is one of the virtues of the man who is righteous and
acceptable to the gods.
The negative form asebeia likewise has an ethical and religious content. Because
of the close connection between the ordinances of the Gk. city state (— People,
art. polis cL) and the worship of the gods, the asebés is often named side by side with
the adikos (—> sin); want of reverence for the gods and neglect of cultic obligations
were considered anti-social. In the case of a man who was a misfit in the community,
adikia was that aspect of his behaviour which was against the ordinances, while
asebeia described that aspect which was against the gods. asebeia refers specifically
to the cult of the state in Athenian trials for “impiety” (especially the one against —
Socrates). In Greece the worship of the gods declined more and more in favour of |
a philosophical ideal and an ethico-moral attitude. A philosopher could be an
atheist (atheotés), and Christians also were described in this way because they did
not reverence the old gods (cf. Lampe, 44f.). Being accused of denying the old
gods, however, did not mean they were accused of asebeia; for the term asebés was
reserved exclusively for the man with no religion and no morals (Liddell-Scott, 255).
oT These ideas rarely appear in the LXX because the basis of OT piety is quite |
different from that of Hellenism. God the creator lays claim to man’s service _
in thought, word and deed; he requires active obedience, not devout trepidation |
92
GODLINESS
to which lip-service is paid just on fixed occasions in cultic homage, or in the sphere
of intellectual rhetoric. This active obedience, together with worship, is the charac-
teristic feature of the fear of God (phobos theou, — Fear), which is essentially the
OT (as opposed to the Gk.) idea of piety. Thus, in the few cases where eusebeia
and its cognates are used, it usually renders words from the root ydaré’, to fear.
But often they are without Heb. equivalent. For eusebeia see Prov. 1:7; 13:11; Isa.
11:2; 33:6; Wis. 10:12; Sir. 49:3; 4 Macc. 5:18, 24, 31, 38; 6:2, 22 etc.; eusebed
Dan. LXX Su. 64; 4 Macc. 9:6; 11:5, 8, 23; 18:2; eusebés Jud. 8:31; Job 32:3; Prov.
12:12; 13:19; Eccl. 3:16; Sir. 11:17, 22; 12:2, 4; Isa. 24:16; 26:7; 32:8; 4 Macc.
1:1, 7; 6:31; 7:16; 10:15 etc.; eusebds 4 Macc. 7:21.
Only in the Wisdom literature, in Job and the Apocrypha (esp. 4 Macc.), do
eusebeia and its related words occur more frequently —an indication of Hel.
influence. The same is true of the semnos word-group (of which the noun and adv.
appear once each, and the vb. not at all): out of 12 occurrences, 3 are in Prov., one
is a v./., and all the rest are in Macc. This adj. describes that which is sublime,
holy and thus worthy of God; in contrast with hagios (— holy), therefore, it is the
aesthetic element which predominates. For semnos see Jdg. 11:35; Prov. 6:8; 8:6;
15:26; 2 Macc. 6:11, 28; 8:15; 4 Macc. 5:36; 7:15; 17:5; for semnotés 2 Macc. 3:12;
semnos 4 Macc. 1:17.
In the LXX the negative compound asebés is used synonymously with adikos,
unrighteous, unjust, and describes both an individual action and the general
attitude of men, in departing from God. An injustice among men, particularly in
Israel, is at the same time an offence against God and his commandments (cf. CL
above). Thus asebeia and adikia stand very close to hamartia, — sin: social order
and social justice are inseparable from worship. asebés renders some 16 Heb.
expressions and is particularly frequent in Job (e.g. 3:17; 6:19; 8:13, 19f., 22;
40:7[12]); Pss. (e.g. 1:1, 4 ff.; 9:23, 34 [10:2, 13]; 50[51]:13); and especially Prov.
(e.g. 1:7, 10, 22, 32; 2:22; 3:25, 33, 35). For asebeia see, e.g., Deut. 9:4 f.; 18:22;
Ps. 5:10; Prov. 1:19, 31; 11:5 f. The vb. asebed is rather less common than the adj.
and the noun (e.g. Deut. 17:13; 18:20; Job 9:20 f.; 10:2f., 7, 15; 34: 8, 10).
NT 1. In the NT this word-group is rarely found. Apart from the OT quotation in
Mk. 7:7 par. Matt. 15:9 (= Isa. 29:13 LXX), sebomai occurs only in Acts,
usually in its adjectival form as a technical term to denote the Gk. adherents of
Jud. (— Conversion, art. prosélytos). In Acts 17:23 and 2 Thess. 2:4 sebasma is the
heathen object of worship. sebazomai appears only in Rom. 1:25, where it means
to show religious reverence. The vb. eusebed (only twice), the adj. eusebés (3 times),
the adv. eusebos (twice) and the noun eusebeia (15 times) are, apart from 4 instances
in Acts, confined to the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Pet. In Acts 25:21, 25 sebastos is
simply the Greek translation of Augustus — the exalted one; in Acts 27:1 it is used
adjectivally to describe a cohort as “imperial’’, a common designation of certain
auxiliary cohorts.
Like hosios (— holy) which frequently stands alongside dikaios (— righteous-
ness), eusebés and eusebeia denote a moral attitude in the Gk.-speaking world. Both
ideas occur frequently in Hel. Jud. They are almost entirely lacking in the earlier
NT literature, though very much in evidence in the Pastoral Epistles. This fact is
best explained by supposing that early Christianity used these words at first for
93
GODLINESS
non-Christian piety and that only later did the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Pet. give
them Christian content. Exceptions are the negative forms asebeia, godlessness
(in thought and attitude) and the adj. asebés, which are already found in Paul
(Rom.).
2. Whilst /atreud (— serve) is a neutral word for cultic worship, sebomai retains
the anthropological emphasis of typical Gk. piety, 1.e. deference to that which is
sublime and exalted. It is very difficult to use such language in relation to God and
Christ, because the Christian is in personal union with them, a union in obedience
and trust.
In Rom. 1:18 Paul describes pre-Christian man as enslaved by asebeia and adikia
‘“ungodliness and wickedness” (RSV; -—> sin), and states that the wrath of God
rests upon him for giving divine honours to the creature rather than the creator
(Rom. 1:25). He thus pronounces judgment upon all contemporary religious
activity, for being wise in its own eyes, it fails to make any contact with the one true
God and with his holy purpose either in the realm of worship or in that of inter-
personal relationships. Here, as in the LXX, there is no longer a sharp distinction
between asebeia and adikia (but cf. CL), because in the light of Christ’s revelation,
both are hamartia (— sin). This important term gained ascendancy over asebeia, as
indeed over all other terms which denote the outworkings of the power of evil.
As in the OT, hamartolos and asebés can stand side by side in Paul to describe
the sinner whom Christ makes righteous (cf. Rom. 5:6 with 5:8; Rom. 4:5). The
Pastoral Epistles take over this association (1 Tim. 1:9; cf. 1 Pet. 4:18). But here
asebeia is in particular the antithesis of the much used eusebeia. According to Tit.
2:12, — grace leads us to turn away from an irreligious existence in order to live
sophronos kai dikaios kai eusebos, soberly, uprightly and godly. In 2 Tim. 2:16 the
false teachers’ alienation from God is described as asebeia.
3. The word theosebés, which has the ring of Gk. piety about it, is used in Jn.
9:31. The additional thought that piety consists in doing the will of God shows,
however, that this statement is firmly rooted in OT-Jewish tradition. In Acts the
fear of God is described by the combination of eusebés and phoboumenos (10:2):
God is revered in that man fears him, i.e. offers him veneration, worship and sacri-
fice. At the same time the appropriate distance is maintained, because man is a
sinner. This also explains the technical term sebomenos used in Acts. It denotes those
Gentiles who worshipped the God of the Jews without wholly belonging to his
people, i.e. without circumcision and minute observance of the law (Acts 13:43, 50;
16:14; 18:7; — Conversion, art. prosélytos). This group of words is naturally used
also for Gentile veneration of the gods (cf. Acts 17:23; 19:27).
4. The Pastoral Epistles use the relevant Gk. vocabulary more freely than the
other NT writings, the probable reason being that — faith (pistis) is here more of a
virtue than in Paul’s other epistles and now means primarily a Christian attitude
to life. Only on that account can the OT phrase phobos theou (fear of God) be
rendered so consistently by the Hel. eusebeia, though to be sure the attitude of the
believer — zén eusebos en Christo Iésou, “live godly in Christ Jesus’ (2 Tim. 3:12;
cf. 1 Clem. 1:2) —1is based on faith in Christ (1 Tim. 3:16; cf. 6:3), and its secretis |
the revelation of God in the flesh. The NT devout person now understands himself -
as a follower of Jesus Christ. Consequently devoutness becomes one in a series of |
Christian virtues (1 Tim. 6:11; Tit. 1:1; 2:12). Thus pistis, faith, here takes on a ©
94
GODLINESS/GOLD
special colouring as compared with its use elsewhere in the NT. Good works are
definitely included in it (1 Tim. 2:10; 5:4) — not however in the sense of justification
by works which was precisely the error for which the false teachers are attacked
(1 Tim. 4:7f.; 6:5f.; 2 Tim. 3:5). Faith is now seen as something ethical and
relating to this world; only once is it defined in relation to its ultimate goal, the
coming — kingdom of God (1 Tim. 4:8).
5. The use of the semnotés group (noun 3 times, adj. 4 times) also fits into this
framework. In Paul it is used only once (Phil. 4:8), where directions are being
given to Christians for the conduct of their everyday lives. Otherwise it occurs
almost exclusively in the Pastoral Epistles. semmnotés differs from eusebeia in that it
indicates, without direct reference to God, an ethical and aesthetic outlook result-
ing in decency and orderliness. Seriousness both of doctrine and of life is expected
of the leaders of the church. By ruling their own families well and setting a good
example, they are to bring up their children to be obedient and to lead honourable
lives (1 Tim. 2:2; 3:4, 8; Tit. 2:2, 7).
6. In Jude and 2 Pet. Christians are described as the righteous who live, like
Noah and Lot, in the midst of asebeis, ungodly men (Jude 4, 15, 18; 2 Pet. 2:5f.;
3:7). Here eusebeia is seen as the Christian manner of life, which keeps Christ’s
return constantly in view (2 Pet. 3:11 f.). The Christian who lives in this expecta-
tion attains to knowledge and is preserved from temptation (2 Pet. 1:3-8; 2:9).
W. Giinther
(a). R. Bultmann, eulabés etc., TDNT II 751-4; W. Foerster, sebomai etc., TDNT VII 168-96.
(b). W. Foerster, “‘eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen”’, NTS 5, 1958-9, 213 ff.; J. Jeremias, ‘“‘Hebr.
5, 7-10”, ZNW 44, 1952-53, 107 ff.; E. M. Kredel and A. Auer, “‘Frommigkeit’’, LTK IV 398 ff. ;
H. J. Schultz, Frémmigkeit in einer weltlichen Welt, 1959; A. Strobel, ““Die Psalmengrundlage der
Gethsemane-Parallele Hebr. 5, 7 ff.”’, ZNW 45, 1954, 252 ff.
Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron
| x pvrdc (chrysos), gold; ypuaiov (chrysion), a piece of
| xpoode gold, gold coin; ypvadqm (chryso6), adorn with gold;
ypvaobds (chrysous), golden.
cL The Gk. word is a borrowing from the Near East, Heb. hariis, Assyr. hurasu.
This may reflect the fact that gold was rare in Greece before Alexander the
Great captured Persia’s stores of gold, but in Egypt, W. Arabia, in the mountains
of Armenia and Persia gold was widely used and the goldsmith’s art perfected
from the third millennium B.c. Hesiod in Works and Days wrote of a golden age
and a golden race of men who reflected the glory of the immortals.
oT In the LXX chrysos and chrysion, which became interchangeable terms,
translate six different Heb. words for gold, of which the most common is
zahab. These probably indicated differing degrees of purity in the gold which was
often mixed with varying percentages of silver (cf. Gen. 2:11 f.). There were three
ways of working gold. It could be melted and cast into moulds to form solid figures
(Exod. 32:4), beaten into sheets with which objects could be covered (Exod. 25:11),
or beaten into a particular shape (Exod. 25:31). Besides the cultic associations of
95
GOLD
gold in both the Tabernacle and the - Temple, in countries round about it was
made into idols (Exod. 20:23). It was frequently used for jewellery (Gen. 41:42;
Jdg. 8:26) and at a comparatively early date it was used for currency (2 Ki. 18:14;
23:33). Since royalty throughout the ages made use of gold for crowns and thrones,
cups and drinking bowls (1 Ki. 10:18, 21; Est. 1:7), gold became an appropriate
gift for a king (Ps. 72:15). In Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadrezzar’s — dream
the Babylonian king is the head of gold (Dan. 2:38). Because gold is indestructible
it becomes a symbol for great value and enduring worth (Prov. 8:18 f.).
NT In the NT the danger of covetousness and the association of idolatry colour the
thinking of several writers (Acts 17:29; 20:33; 1 Tim. 2:9; Jas. 5:3; 1 Pet.
1:18; Rev. 9:20). On the other hand, gold is presented to the infant Jesus (Matt.
2:11; —» Gift; — Incense), and symbolizes lasting value (1 Cor. 3:12) and heaven’s
perfection (Rev. 21:18, 21). J. G. Baldwin
| dpypiov | apyvplov (argyr ion), silver; dpyvpoc (argyros), [less
PIU frequent] silver; apyvpotc larereus), made of silver.
CL The Gk. word derives from the adj. argos, shining, white, and occurs first in
Homer. While the word denotes anything silver, it often has the significance of
money. In Hesiod the silver age followed the golden and was inferior to it.
oT In LXX argyrion translates the Heb. kesep, which occurs frequently in the OT,
often in connection with gold. Silver had been known as early as gold, but it
was less plentiful in ancient Babylon and Egypt. It is first mentioned in the Bible
as a medium of exchange (Gen. 23:15) and this use predominates in the OT. But it
was also used for jewellery (Exod. 3:22; Cant. 1:11) and was sometimes fashioned
into an idol (Jdg. 17:3). Mining for silver is mentioned in Job 28:1, and because
it was rarely found in pure form, but was most frequently mixed with other metals,
it regularly needed refining and so became symbolic of God’s refining process in
men’s hearts (Isa. 1:25; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:3).
NT As in the case of gold, silver in the NT is associated with idolatry (Acts 17:29;
19:24; Rev. 9:20). It is corruptible and a potential source of corruption (Matt.
26:15); it is therefore an unworthy goal for living (Jas. 5:3; 1 Pet. 1:18). Indeed the
follower of Jesus may be called upon to do without it altogether (Matt. 10:9).
J. G. Baldwin
[ xadnoc xadKd¢ (chalkos), copper, bronze (not brass, AV, RV), a
a : copper coin; yadxiov (chalkion), a copper vessel or im-
plement; yadxetc (chalkeus), coppersmith.
CL Since copper was the first metal to be worked in Greece, chalkos became the ©
word for metal in general and applied at first also to iron. Later it also included —
bronze, copper to which a small amount of tin had been added. |
96
GOLD
oT In the LXX copper (Heb. n°hdSet) is first mentioned, together with iron, in
connection with Tubal-Cain, who made cutting instruments (Gen. 4:22). This
draws attention to an important development in the history of mankind. Copper
weapons, mace heads, helmets, axe blades, were developed in the Early Bronze
period, and a cache of 450 copper objects, including a socketed axehead of c. 3100
found at Nahal Mishmar in the Judean desert in 1961, has pushed back into the
fourth millennium the achievement of high technical standards. Bronze probably
made its appearance c. 2000 B.c., but copper remained in use for objects which did
not need to be cast, and both metals became much more common from this time
on. A hard cutting edge was achieved on this soft metal by hammering.
The altar of sacrifice in the tabernacle was bronze covered (Exod. 38:2), whereas
its carrying rings were cast (38:5), and Solomon imported Hiram from Tyre to
oversee the lavish bronze and copper work connected with the Temple (1 Ki. 7:13-
47). Copper smelting was carried out as early as 4000 B.c. at Timnah, a mining
site about 15 miles north of Elath. It was here that N. Glueck thought (in 1940)
he had found King Solomon’s mines, but B. Rothenberg has now proved that
Egyptians operated these mines in the 14th—12th centuries B.c. In 1974 a network
of underground mines and shafts, penetrating for hundreds of yards in all direc-
tions and at several levels, was excavated. These mines are at least a thousand
years older than the earliest previously explored underground mines. The deepest
workings are several hundred feet below the surface and are supplied with ventila-
tion by air channels, roughly the diameter of a thumb, yet very few technical errors
were noted. The description of mining in Job 28:1-11 will be illuminated by the
new evidence now available.
([F. F. Bruce] In Ezek. 1:4, 27; 8:2 hasSmal, which LXX renders élektron, elec-
trum, silver-gold alloy, may mean brass [like Accad. el/mesu]; the imagery of
Ezekiel’s inaugural vision “‘will have been suggested to him... by... the work of
a Babylonian brass-founder” [G. R. Driver, ““Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision”, VT 1,
1951, 60-62].)
NT The word occurs only 6 times in the NT meaning copper coin (Matt. 10:9;
Mk. 6:8; 12:41), the material from which an idol is made (Rev. 9:20), a
commodity of merchandise (Rev. 18:12) and a clanging gong (1 Cor. 13:1), such
as was used in various cults and here symbolizing the emptiness of speaking in
tongues when devoid of understanding and love. The compound chalkolibanon
(Rev. 1:15) describes an alloy, the exact nature of which is not known.
J. G. Baldwin
; atdnpoc (sidéros), iron; aldnpoic (sidérous), made of
| aténpos poe tl ( ) npoos ( )
cL The Gk. word meant not only iron but also anything made of iron and a place
for selling iron. In Homer’s time iron was highly valued and pieces were given
as prizes. Hesiod considered the Iron Age in which he lived to be the epitome of
human evil. The word is used symbolically by Homer to mean hard, stubborn,
merciless.
oT In the LXX the word occurs frequently, translating Heb. barzel (Aram. parzel).
Anatolian armourers were experimenting as early as the third millennium B.c.
97
GOLD/Goop
with iron blades for swords, and one example from Dorak is dated 2500 B.c. The
metallurgy of iron is believed to have been developed by the Hittites during the
second millennium B.c. Deuteronomy mentions “‘the iron furnace’”’ (Deut. 4:20),
and it will be interesting to see how old smelting crucibles in the Sinai and Negev
regions prove to be. Hittite iron was brought to Palestine by merchants from Tyre
and later by the Philistines, who monopolized the blacksmith’s art (1 Sam. 13:19,
20). The Canaanites had chariots of iron (i.e. with iron fittings) in the Judges period
(Jos. 17:16; Jdg. 1:19; 4:3). By the time of David iron was used for nails (1 Chr.
22:3), though bronze was still being used in large quantities. The OT uses iron as a
symbol of strength (Ps. 2:9; Jer. 1:18), endurance and hardness (Job 19:24; Mic.
4:13), and cruelty (Dan. 7:7, 19; Amos 1:3). In Nebuchadrezzar’s image (Dan 2)
iron with clay represented the last human kingdom before God’s kingdom filled the
earth.
NT In the NT the word is used in a symbolic sense (Rev. 2:27; 9:9; 12:5; 19:15),
and once.as an item of merchandise (Rev. 18:12). Rev. 2:27; 12:5; and 19:15
interpret Ps. 2:9 christologically as a picture of Christ reigning in —> judgment. The
iron sceptre may have been a short-handled battle mace (A. A. Anderson, The
Book of Psalms, 1, 1972, 69). J. G. Baldwin
D. R. Bowes, “‘Bronze’’, ZPEB I 655 f.; “Gold”, ZPEB II 771f.; “Iron”, ZPEB III 307 ff.;
“Silver”, ZPEB V 437 f.; N. Glueck, ‘““Ezion-geber’’, BA 88, 1965, 70-87 (this article revises some
of the author’s earlier opinions); A. Negev, ed., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land,
1972, 208-11; B. Rothenberg, PEQ 104, 1962, 5-71; S. M. Paul and W. G. Dever, eds., Biblical
Archaeology, 1973, 193-204; C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall and T. I. Williams, eds., A
History of Technology, 1, 1954, 582-88.
Good, Beautiful, Kind
Just as the concept — evil can have different, distinct shades of meaning, the ideas
contained in the concept good are expressed in NT Gk. by three word-groups, each
with its own separate emphasis. agathos is used generally for what is good and
useful, especially moral goodness in relation to God who is perfect. kalos can be
used as a synonym, but in comparison with the ethical and religious emphasis of
agathos, it stresses more the aesthetic aspect, and stands for beautiful, fine, free
from defects. When applied to acts, it means noble, praiseworthy. For Plato the
kalon is the realization of the agathon in the sphere of objects. chréstos expresses the
material usefulness of things with regard to their goodness, pleasantness and soft-
ness.
er ae ayaddoc (agathos), good; dyadoepyéw (agathoergeo),
| yao do good; ayadonolém (agathopoied), do good;
ayafonoidc (agathopoios), doing good, one who does good; dyadonoiia
(agathopoiia), doing good; aya@wotyvn (agathosyné), goodness, uprightness, gener-
osity.
CL As an adj. in secular Gk. agathos means serviceable and good; used in con-
junction with a noun it denotes the excellence of the object described. Used as a
98
|
|
GOOD
noun, to agathon and the plur. ta agatha mean the good or good things which evoke
a state of well-being. They may be material, intellectual, moral or religious,
depending on one’s ideal for life. It is only agathos itself which is used with this
wide range of meaning from the time of Homer to Koine Gk. All the other deriva-
tives listed above do not occur until the LXX or the NT. Cl. Gk. used euergeted
and other terms in their place.
1. In Gk. philosophy the concept of the good plays a major réle. For Plato the
idea of the good is the all-embracing, highest, and indeed dominant idea or form.
For the good is the power which preserves and supports in contrast to evil which
spoils and destroys (Rep. 608 e). In Plato the idea of the good has a religious
colouring (Rep. 517 b 7-c 4), but Aristotle applies it as a formal concept to the
totality of human relations. In his Ethics he defines the goal of all action as the
attainment of some form of good (Eth. Nic. 1, 1; cf. F. Copleston, A History of
Philosophy, I, 1946, 160 ff., 177 ff., 332-50; W. Grundmann, agathos, TDNTI 11 f.).
2. In Hel. thought the ancient humanistic attitude to life was shattered (—
Foreign, art. xenos) and the predominant meaning of the concept of good is once
again religious. According to the Hermetic writings, the salvation brought about
by the deity, i.e. deification, is the good (Corp. Herm. 1, 26). Thus the predicate
good was reserved for the deity who brings salvation (to agathon ho theos, God is
the good; 2, 16; cf. 1, 7; 6, 3 f.; 11, 17), for he alone is free from attachment to the
material (cf. W. Grundmann, TDNT I 12 f.).
As an expounder of Hel. Jud., Philo names enkrateia (moderation, Spec. Leg. 1,
149), eusebeia (fear of God, Spec. Leg. 4, 147) and sophia (wisdom, Rer. Div. Her.
98) as the highest possessions by means of which the soul finds the way to God,
the highest good (W. Grundmann, TDNT I 13).
oT 1. In the OT the concept of the good is indissolubly linked with personal faith
in God. An idea of the good, freed from the concept of God as personal —
comparable with the ideas in Gk. and Hel. thought — is inconceivable. The good 1s
always a gift from God and as such is outside the control of man in his own strength
(Gen. 3:5). It is presupposed throughout that God is the One who is good, and
not just “the good.”’ This realization is further developed within the OT in the
course of a deepening of the relationship of the people and of individuals to God
(e.g. Pss. 34:10 [MT 34:11]; 84:11 [MT 84:12]; 23:6).
Thus ¢6b became the regular designation of the goodness of God’s character or
actions. The LXX translates t6b in this connection almost exclusively by to agathon,
and thus approaches thé Graeco-Hellenistic outlook. It only rarely employs the
nearly synonymous — kalos (e.g. Gen. 1:18). Thus God, according to the usage of
the LXX, becomes man’s highest good, and man finally becomes the lord of this
good in the sense that he acquires a right to “good” treatment, as long as he regards
God as his highest good.
2. That —> God is the One who is good is made clear in the OT through his saving
dealings with his chosen people, in the giving of the — law (Deut. 30:15; Prov.
28:10), in the historical events of the Exodus from — Egypt and the conquest of
Canaan (Exod. 18:9; Num. 10:29 ff.). The Israelite found renewed reason for
praising God as the One who is good in the knowledge that everything that comes
from him is good, whether it be his work in creation (Gen. 1:18; t6b here also
99
GooD
embraces the aesthetic moment of beauty), his —> word (Isa. 39:8), his — spirit
(Ps. 143:10), even when appearances seem to say the opposite (Gen. 50:20).
The constant tension between God’s — promises and their incomplete — fulfil-
ment was bearable for Israel, because they recognized that God’s promises in all
their temporal fulfilments always look beyond themselves towards a final, escha-
tological fulfilment. The good which God has promised to his people will come to
its real fulfilment in messianic, eschatological salvation. It is in this sense that texts
like Isa. 52:7 and Jer. 32:41 have been interpreted messianically by Israel.
Recognition of the goodness of God could not be taken away from the —
remnant even by hard, shattering, historical events like the exile. Nevertheless,
Yahweh’s goodness, his benevolent action in history, had been temporarily with-
drawn from Israel and was deeply concealed. In the Wisdom literature, for example,
striking expression is given to the way in which man saw his own limitations without
illusion in the presence of the incomprehensible God. He recognizes the uncer-
tainty of all life’s values and the vanity of existence (Eccl. 3:12; 5:17), and sees
clearly man’s inability to achieve good (Eccl. 7:20). But in the last analysis even
this scepticism, in which God is withdrawn and man stands alone, could not destroy
the knowledge of the goodness of God, of his benevolent activity.
Post-exilic Judaism and Rab. theology also held firmly to the fact that God is
good. For Rab. Judaism God’s goodness brings salvation. It is revealed in the
Law which is good and can be carried out. In carrying out God’s law, man
can now himself do good and be good (SB III 92 f.; IV 466 ff., 536 ff.). Neverthe-
less, essential goodness can only be realized in a man’s personal relationships with
God and with his fellow-men (Mic. 6:8).
3. The Qumran sect by the Dead Sea radicalized this unshaken confidence that
good could be achieved into a strict asceticism, and linked it with the command to
hate for ever the sons of wickedness. But here too — as consistently throughout the
OT — it is the newly emerging songs of praise which are the genuine expressions of
the sect’s piety. They begin and end with the praise of God and his benevolent
actions even in the midst of need and oppression. What stands out is what has been
asserted in every period of Israel’s history and expressed most completely in the
Psalms (e.g. Pss. 16:2; 118:1; cf. 1 Chr. 16:34, 2 Chr. 5:13), namely that God
himself is the One who is really and exclusively good. In the language of the LXX,
he is the highest good.
NT agathos occurs very frequently (107 times) in all the NT writings except Rev.
(where ka/os does not occur either). The compounds formed with poieo are
rare, and are found almost exclusively in | Pet. (apart from 3 occurrences of
agathopoieé in Lk.). agathoergeo occurs only once (1 Tim. 6:18), and agathdsyné
in 4 places in the Pauline writings.
1. According to the Synoptics, the OT statement about God’s essential goodness
is radicalized in Jesus’ preaching: oudeis agathos ei mé heis ho theos, no one is good
save God alone (Mk. 10:17 f.; Lk. 18:18 f.; Matt. 19:17). However, this does not
prevent a natural application of the predicate ‘‘good’’ to the moral differences
between men, who do good as well as evil (Matt. 12:35; 25:21; and par. Lk. 6:45;
19:17), an application which includes within it the goodness of God (Matt. 5:45;
22:10 and often).
100
GOoD
But this admission of normal differences and the demand for works of love
(Matt. 5:16; 25:31-45, where — kalos is used instead of agathos) must not be
separated from Jesus’ preaching as a whole. Jesus calls sinners to repentance. In
this connection it is impossible to ignore the call, “Unless your righteousness
exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of
heaven” (Matt. 5:20). ““You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect” (Matt. 5:48).
2. Jn. 5:29 proclaims judgment according to works. But this statement too has
to be seen within the context of the whole message (cf. Jn. 10:27—29; 15:5 ff.).
It is only in Jesus Christ that man is given a new opportunity of existence. In so far
as he receives a share in God’s goodness he also can pass on good to others by
doing good. According to Jn. 10:11 and 14, Jesus is the good (— kalos) — shepherd
who lays down his life and makes available here and now the eternal good of
redemption. In these passages kalos is used as a synonym for agathos. In Jn. 1:46
(in the form of a proverb?) the sceptical question is posed, ‘““Can anything good
(agathon, i.e. salvation) come out of Nazareth?” ({[Ed.] L. Morris points out that
the question does not reflect any known opinion of Nazareth; it is most likely to be
understood as the utterance of a man who could not conceive of the messiah
coming from such an insignificant place. The difference between agathos and kalos
in Jn. appears to be grammatical: agathos is used predicatively at 1:46 and 7:12,
as a noun at 5:29, while kalos is always attributive (The Gospel according to John,
1972, 165; cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Bible Translator 11, 1960, 173 f.).)
3. Paul takes up the message of the Synoptic Gospels. He too acknowledges the
relative difference between good and evil men. Within God’s sustaining order of
things, the civil authorities receive their dignity and task to maintain law and order
and punish evildoers (Rom. 13:1-4). The concept agathopoios, used only in | Pet.
2:14, also belongs in this context: the man who does right will receive praise from
the authorities.
But the distinction which is justified among human institutions breaks down
before God. The natural man is irretrievably in bondage to the powers of — sin
and — death, and has no right to claim the attribute “‘good’”’ for himself. Even if he
is a fanatical observer of the law, which is good, it only works death for him
(Rom. 7:18 ff.; cf. 3:20; 6:23; Gal. 3:10 ff.). But through the redemption which
has taken place in Christ goodness overflows the believer. ““We know that in
everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according
to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28 RSV, cf. v./. in RSV mg “in everything he works for
good’’, or “everything works for good’’; see M. Black, “The Interpretation of
Romans viii 28” in Neotestamentica et Patristica, Supplements to NovT 6, Fest-
schrift for O. Cullmann, 1962, 166-72; and Romans, 1973, 124; cf. also Rom. 11:32-
36).
In Christ the believer is created for good works (Eph. 2:10), and receives a good
—> conscience (cf. Acts 23:1; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19). This also underlies the urgent exhor-
tations to bear — fruit in good works (Col. 1:10), to seek to do good (1 Thess.
5:15) and to do it to everyone (Rom. 15:2; 16:19; Gal. 6:6, 10). Likewise, in Rom.
15:14 (cf. 2 Thess. 1:11) believers are exhorted to agathdsyné, good and fitting
behaviour. agathos is essentially a quality which a man has (TDNT I 16f., 18).
All honour is due to the one who does good (Rom. 2:7). Paul also maintains the
101]
GOoD
concept of judgment according to works (2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 3:10). But comparison
with Rom. 8:31-—39 is not intended. The gift and the task of the new life are kept in
tension, with both aspects fully emphasized. Just as kalos can stand for agathos,
Paul employs kalopoied (2 Thess. 3:13) and agathoerged once (1 Tim. 6:18), as
synonymous expressions meaning to do good. agathoergeo also occurs once in
Acts 14:17, where it refers to God who does good. A striking fact is the marked
preference for — kalos as opposed to agathos in the Pastorals.
4. In the remaining NT writings agathapoied, to do good, is used only in 1 Pet.
2:15, 20; 3:6, 17; 3 Jn. 11; and Lk. 6:9, 33, 35. agathopoiia, doing good, is em-
ployed only in 1 Pet. 4:19. Such right action is the visible proof that a man has
really and gratefully grasped the new opportunity for existence as his own. | Pet.
3:16, 21 indicate the good conscience which the believer ought to demonstrate to
the pagan.
In contrast, Heb. 9:11 and 10:1 lay their emphasis upon future, eschatological
gifts (cf. 1 Pet. 4:19). In this age there is a permanent tension between God, who is
good and who gives good gifts, and reality, characterized by sin and death, in
which the Christian’s life is caught up. It is in this perspective that the promise of
Phil. 1:6 stands and has meaning: ““He who began a good work in you will bring
it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.’ Therefore the warning of Gal. 6:9
also holds good: ‘‘Let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall
reap, if we do not lose heart.”’ E. Beyreuther
16 Kaddc (kalos), good, beautiful, noble; xadozoigw
| asacliaes | (kalopoieo), do good.
cL 1. kalos (cf. Sanskrit kalya, healthy, strong, excellent) has as its basic meaning:
organically fit, suitable, useful, sound, e.g. a suitable harbour (Homer); a
healthy body (Plato); pure, genuine gold (Theognis); an unblemished sacrifice
(Xenophon). Aesthetic judgments were very early attached to the concept of the
fit and organically sound. kalos then also came to mean the aesthetically beautiful.
Finally the concept was broadened again and gained the additional sense of
morally good (Sophocles, Pindar and others). Thus, in the course of the history of
Greek thought, the concept kalos achieved an inclusive meaning, linked with taxis
(order) and symmetria (symmetry). In this context kalos came to mean “‘the total
state of soundness, health, wholeness and order, whether in external appearance
or internal disposition. For the Gk., then, the term applies particularly to the world
of the divine’ (W. Grundmann, kalos TDNT III 537).
2. A Greek ideal for life and education was expressed by the phrase kalos kai
agathos which showed the aristocracy how it should live. An education based on
the arts and exemplary behaviour moulded the nobleman in the ethics of his class.
In Homer it is an expression of ancient European aristocratic pride among the
leading tribes of Greece. For them inherited position had to be earned afresh by
meeting high and inexorable demands. It had to be embraced along with a heroic
bearing, self-discipline, and the will to be fair in all dealings between noble and
commoner. Thus kalos and agathos were united in the single concept kalos kagathos
(cf. W. Grundmann, TDNT III 538 f.).
102
GoOopD
Socrates and Plato raised this chivalrous class-ethic to the position of the
general goal of all Gk. educational principles. In their writings the kalos kagathos
is a man who is respectful and fair, thoughtful and discreet, moderate and capable
in the way he conducts his life, a man for whom everything is in order (Grg. 470e,
518a—c; Rep. 3, 425d).
3. Finally Plato raised the concept kalos in the sphere of philosophy and religion
to the status of an eternal idea by linking it with the experience of erds (— love).
The unremitting longing and striving of the soul is directed towards the kalon.
erds is the force which drives men to seek and to recognize the ka/on in this world
(Symp. 204, 211 ff.; cf. Phdr. 249 ff.). That which links the divine and earthly realms
and which gives life meaning and an eternal dimension is the kalon. Earthly beauty
partakes of the eternal archetype of the beautiful. This religious significance which
Plato’s doctrine of ideas imparted to the concept kalos was retained throughout the
development of Hellenistic Christian thought. For Plotinus the kalon was what
flowed forth, the equivalent of the idea (Enneads, 1, 6; cf. 6; 7). Ecstasy, as a
glimpse of the eternal beauty, is the highest experience. It is granted only to beauti-
ful souls who grow to maturity on earth through the virtues of self-discipline,
fearlessness and freedom from attachment.
For Augustine, too, and for Thomas Aquinas true beauty is at one with the
eternally true and good, and is only found with God; everything on earth is merely
a reflection of the divine beauty (cf. Augustine, De Civ. 19, 3; 22, 19; De Pulchro;
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1 Q. 5, 4; 1? 2?* Q. 27, 1).
oT The meaning which the Greeks gave to kalos, which became decisive for
Christian antiquity and via Christendom for the development of thought
throughout the western world, scarcely penetrated the world of the OT or the NT.
In the LXX kalos is used as the translation of yapeh (e.g. Gen. 12:14; 29:17; 39:6;
41:2) and denotes a beautiful external appearance. But kalos occurs most fre-
quently beside —- agathos and — chréstos as a translation of t6b. It means good,
not so much in the sense of an ethical evaluation as in that of pleasant, enjoyable,
beneficial. kalos, as opposed to agathos, is what is pleasing to Yahweh, what he
likes or what gives him joy, whereas agathos suggests more the application of an
ethical standard. But it is impossible to draw any clear-cut lines of demarcation
for the basic meaning of the Heb. 76), for it contains both aspects. Only in one
place does the use of kala give rise to what is probably the expression of an aesthetic
judgment (Gen. 1:31). Perhaps one should translate even here kai idou kala lian
as “‘and behold [it was] completely successful” (cf. MT: ‘‘and behold it was very
good’’). It means fair or beautiful in, e.g., Gen. 6:6; 12:14; 2 Sam. 11:2; 13:1.
Otherwise it is striking that there is no room in the OT for the Greek ideal of beauty
as a motive for living and for education. Everything is directed towards the will of
God which is expressed in the law. Any ideal of self-perfection is thus excluded.
Hence kalos is frequently used as a synonym for — agathos (cf. Mal 2:17; Mic.
6:8; Isa. 1:17; and also Num. 24:1; Deut. 6:18; 12:28; 2 Chr. 14:2 [MT 14:1];
and later Prov. 3:4). In the story of the fall kalos is used in the description of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17; cf. v. 18; 3:5 f., 22). The LXX
translates the Heb. 16b ward‘ by kalon kai ponéron, “‘good and evil” (—» Adam; —
Evil; —-~ Knowledge; — Sin).
103
GOOD
NT It is striking that in the NT kalos is used almost as frequently as agathos to
denote good, and this happens consistently throughout the NT writings
(agathos 104 times; kalos 99).
1. In the Synoptic Gospels, John the Baptist demanded from those who would
enter the fellowship of the ~ kingdom good — fruit (karpon kalon, Matt. 3:10
par. Lk. 3:9). Jesus made the same demand (Matt. 7:17 ff.; 12:33; cf. Lk. 6:43 ff.).
The parables speak of good seed (kalon sperma), good men (kaloi) who are caught
in the net (Matt. 13:24, 27, 37, 38), and good ground (kalé gé) in which the word
flourishes (Matt. 13:23 par. Mk. 4:20 Lk. 8:15). It is in this sense that Jesus
calls men to good — works (kala erga, Matt. 5:16). Once again kalos is used al-
most synonymously with agathos. The fine or good works which Jesus expects are
summed up in the maxim of Matt. 25:40, “As you did it to one of the least of these
my brethren, you did it to me.’ They remain connected with the works of love
which served as directives for the practice of mercy in Judaism (cf. Isa. 58:6-7,
where they are already listed). At the same time the kala erga are removed from all
thought of striving after reward (cf. Lk. 10:30 ff., the parable of the Good Samari-
tan; — Reward).
In the story of the anointing at Bethany (Mk. 14:6) Jesus, aware of his imminent
passion, placed the deed of love which had been done to him higher than the alms-
giving of his disciples. The opportunity for this act — the anticipatory anointing of
his body and thus the affirmation by his disciples of his path of suffering — only
offered itself in this historical moment.
2. In Jn. Jesus is the good — shepherd (ho poimén ho kalos). Here kalos is used
to bring into focus his office as shepherd in all its uniqueness, in contrast to con-
temporary false claims to the office of shepherd and to the shepherd-gods of anti-
quity (Jn. 10:11, 14). He is the good, the lawful shepherd, because he opposes the
wolf at the risk and at the cost of his life. ([Ed.] This may be seen against the OT
background of Yahweh as shepherd [Gen. 49:24; Pss. 23; 78:52 f.]. The patriarchs
were shepherds. Ungodly kings were denounced as wicked shepherds [1 Ki. 22:17;
Jer. 10:21; 23:1 f.]. Ezek. 34:5 f. pictures Israel as a flock without a shepherd and
Yahweh as the true shepherd [vv. 11-16]. Cf. C. K. Barrett, JTS 48, 1947, 163 f.;
R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, I, 1966, 397 f.)
Jn. 10:31 speaks of Jesus’ many good works (polla erga kala) in the context of a
controversy with the Jews. It is not the works that are in dispute, but his messianic
claim, the evidence for which is in these very works.
3. Paul employs kalos as a synonym for — agathos; it does not convey anything
which could not be expressed by agathos (cf. Rom. 7:18, 21; 2 Cor. 13:7; Gal.
6:9; 1 Cor. 7:1, 8, 26).
4. On the other hand, the preference for kalos in the Pastorals is striking (cf.
1 Tim. 5:10, 25; 6:18; Tit. 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; 1 Tim. 3:1). Military imagery, in
particular, is linked with the concept kalos (cf. 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 2:3; 1 Tim.
1:18; 2 Tim. 4:7). But in other contexts kalos is used remarkably often instead of
agathos (cf. | Tim. 1:8; 3:7; 3:13; 4:6; 6:19; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Tim. 4:4). The reason
for this usage here is clear. The word was a favourite in popular Hellenistic speech
and it expressed a Hellenistic sense of values. It is used here in order to express
the more clearly for the second generation of Christians what characterizes disciple-
ship of Christ. In any case, both OT and NT right on into the Catholic Epistles
104
GOOD
(Jas. 2:7; 3:13; 4:17; 1 Pet. 2:12; 4:10) demonstrate a use of the term kalos which,
without undergoing any change of meaning, is freely employed to express Biblical
ideas in the context of Gk. language and thought. E. Beyreuther
| xpnatéc | ypnatoc (chréstos), mild, pleasant, kind, good;
APUETOS ypnatotye (chréstotés), goodness, kindness, friendliness;
xX pnatevopal (chrésteuomai), show kindness.
CL chréstos originally denoted usefulness, and hence what appeared useful, good,
suitable and proper (e.g. mild wine). This was very soon followed by the broad-
ening of the concept to include moral excellence and perfection, in which inner
greatness was linked with genuine goodness of heart. So chréstos meant morally
good and honourable, the capacity to show kindness to everyone. Used as a noun,
to chréston meant a friendly nature, kindness; in the plur. ta chrésta, kind actions
(Herodotus). In the same way the noun, hé chréstotés, from Euripides on, acquired
the meaning of friendliness, kindness, mildness, and was used in inscriptions as a
title of honour for rulers and important public figures.
oT 1. Inthe LXX the Hebrew word (66 in its many shades of meaning is translated
by chréstos along with — agathos and — kalos. There is little contemplation
in the OT of the goodness of God in and of itself. On the other hand, his bene-
volent activity is constantly sung and recognized in hymns of praise. chréstos and
chréstotés are favourite, although not the only, words for expressing the abundance
of good which God in his — covenant faithfulness displays to his people and to all
men as his creatures. This constant mercy and readiness to help on the part of
God is one of the essential themes of the Pss. (e.g. 25:7 f.; 31:19 [MT 31:20]; 65:11
[MT 65:12]). But chréstos also occurs in prophetic texts, especially in Jeremiah
(e.g. 40[33]:11; cf. 24:2 f., 5). This picture of the kindness of God grows deeper
in the face of the bewildering recognition of the enduring nature of sin. Yet he still
remains kind! Nor could the fate of the nation after the exile, with its conviction
that God’s dealings are incomprehensible, suppress the acknowledgment that Yah-
weh is kind (cf. 2 Macc. 1:24).
2. The Qumran documents continue the same train of thought. Just as the OT
expected the pious, for his part, to show kindness which should reflect the kindness
he had received from God, the sect also expected its members to show gracious
kindness to one another. The often recurring phrase used to denote this is ’ah*bat
hesed, gracious love (e.g. 1QS 2:24; 5:4, 25; 8:2). Beside mercy (rah*mim) and
patience the Spirit of Light shows “‘eternal kindness” (t6b ‘6lamim, cf. 1QS 4:3).
But in unexpected juxtaposition to the demand for gracious kindness towards one
another stands the command for “eternal hatred’’ of the sons of wickedness (1QS
4:17). Here we can see, as it was radicalized in later Judaism, the limitation of the
OT command to love or show kindness which was not taken to include uncondi-
tional love of one’s enemies.
NT In the NT chréstos occurs 7 times; hé chréstotés 10 times; the former 3 times,
the latter exclusively in Paul.
1. chréstos is used of things, as in secular Gk., to denote their goodness (Lk. 5:39,
good wine).
105
GOOD
2. The concept is used in Lk. to break down the limitation of the OT command-
ment to love (Lk. 6:35). God’s kindness embraces even the ungrateful, and the
wicked (obstinate sinners); because it is without limit, it calls for unconditional
love for their enemies on the part of Jesus’ disciples. Jesus invited those who had
become exhausted by legalistic piety to take upon themselves his easy yoke (ho gar
zygos mou chréstos, Matt. 11:30). In experiencing his kindness, men are to be
like him in showing kindness towards others (v. 29).
3. While chréstos only appears 3 times in the Synoptic Gospels, the Johannine
writings and the Catholic epistles do not employ the word at all. But Paul makes
striking use of it together with the noun chréstotés which he prefers.
In his attack on self-righteous Jewish piety he shows that the goodness of God
is no cheap grace which is there to be made a convenience of. It should lead to a
horror of one’s unwillingness to repent so that God’s aim of converting men to
himself may be achieved (Rom. 2:4).
Especially in his use of the noun hé chréstotés the apostle makes repeated use of
the idea of the incomprehensible kindness of God. He does not desire the death
of the sinner but his salvation (Rom. 11:22; Eph. 2:7; Tit. 3:4). His purpose is to
show the meaning of kindness in the life of the man whom Christ has grasped.
Kindness and gentleness belong to the visible gifts of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Love
(— art. agapé) shows itself as kindness (1 Cor. 13:4, expressed here by the vb.
chrésteuetai hé agapé). For kindness is an unmistakable and essential characteristic
of love. Because kindness is one of the chief gifts of the Spirit, it becomes the subject
of the exhortation of Col. 3:12: “‘Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, compassion,
kindness.”’ As a direct out-working of agapé, it is always alive and active, breaking
out spontaneously in the life of the man who is led by Christ. This completes the
circle from the original kindness of God who created the world and men, separated
a people for himself, and remains kind despite sin and wickedness, to the revelation
of his incomprehensible kindness in Jesus Christ in the fullness of — time. Here
God’s saving activity reaches its — goal. In Jesus Christ God’s fatherly kindness
can be seen as in a mirror. Moreover, the members of the Christian community,
the church, have to choose as their path in the world the way of kindness which
they must show to all men. At the same time they have to choose it in a world which
often betrays little sign of it.
E. Beyreuther
(a). W. Barclay, Flesh and Spirit, 1962, 97-102; M. Buber, Good and Evil: Two Interpretations,
1953; G. W. Buchanan, ““The Old Testament Meaning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’, JBL
75, 1956, 114-20; W. M. Clark, ‘‘A Legal Background to the Yahwist’s Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in
Genesis 2-3’, JBL 88, 1969, 266-78; I. Engnell, “‘ ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story’’,
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 3, 1955, 103-19; R. Gordis, ‘““The Knowledge of Good and
Evil in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls’, JBL 76, 1957, 123-38; W. Grundmann,
agathos etc., TDNT I 10-18; W. Grundmann and G. Bertram, kalos, TDNT II 536-56; R. Koch,
“Good and evil”, EBT I 317-21; L. J. Kuyper, “To Know Good and Evil”, Interpretation 1, 1947,
490 ff.; H. D. A. Major, ‘“The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’”’, ExpT 20, 1908-9, 427 ff. ;
A. Millard, ‘‘For He is Good’’, TB 17, 1966, 115 ff.; C. L. Mitton, ““Motives for Goodness in the
New Testament’, ExpT 63, 1951-52, 73 ff.; C. J. Orlebeke and L. B. Smedes, God and the Good,
1975; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 154-60; B. Reicke, ““The Knowledge Hidden
in the Tree of Paradise’, JSS 1, 1956, 193-201; C. Spicq, Agape in the New Testament, I-II,
1963-65; F. L. R. Stachowiak, ““Goodness”, EBT I 321-8; H. S. Stern, ‘““The Knowledge of Good
and Evil’’, Vetus Testamentum 8, 1958, 407 ff.; K. Weiss, chréstos etc. TDNT IX 472-81; J. W.
106
Goop/GOSPEL
Wenham, The Goodness of God, 1974; F. Wisse, ‘““The Righteous Man and the Good Man in
Romans v. 7°’, NTS 19, 1972-73, 91 ff.
The following works deal with ethical aspects of the question of “‘good’’: W. W. Bartley,
Morality and Religion, 1971; R. M. Hare, The Language of Morals, 1952; T. W. Manson, Ethics
and the Gospel, 1960; I. T. Ramsey, ed., Christian Ethics in Contemporary Philosophy, 1973, re-
print; S. S. Smalley, ““Good, Goodness”’, in C. F. H. Henry, ed., Baker’s Dictionary of Christian
Ethics, 1973, 267 f.; C. L. Stevenson, Ethics and Language, 1944; J. O. Urmson, The Emotive
Theory of Ethics, 1968; G. H. von Wright, The Varieties of Goodness, 1963.
(b). J. Begrich, ‘“Die Paradieserzahlung”’, ZA W 50, 1932, 93 ff.; J. Chatillon, ‘““Dulcedo”’, Diction-
naire de la Spiritualité Wl 1777-95 (Volume XXIV); J. Coppens, ‘“‘La Connaissance du Bien et du
Mal et le Péché du Paradis’’, Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia, 1948; J. de Fraine, “‘Jeux
de mots dans le récit de la chute’’, Mélanges Bibliques A. Robert, 1957, 47-59; P. Humbert,
Etudes sur le Recit du Paradis et de la Chute dans la Genése, 1940, 82-116; H. Junker, Die biblische
Urgeschichte, 1932; A. I. Mennessier, ‘‘Douceur’’, Dictionnaire de la Spiritualité WI 1674-85
(Volume XXIV); H. Renckens, Urgeschichte und Heilsgeschichte: Israels Schau in die Vergangen-
heit nach Gen. I-3, 19612; H. Schmidt, Die Erzahlung von Paradies und Stindenfall, 1931; S. H.
Siedl, Qumran — eine Monchsgemeinde im Alten Bund, 1963, 195-209; C. Spica, ‘‘Bénignité,
mansuétude, douceur, clémence”’, RB 54, 1947, 321-9; F. L. R. Stachowiak, chréstotés, thre
biblisch-theologische Entwicklung und Eigenart, 1957; A. Vogtle, Die Tugend — und Laster-Kataloge
im Neuen Testament, NTAbh 16, 4/5, 1936; S. Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterketaloge im Neuen
Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berticksichtigung der Qumran-Texte,
BZNW 25, 1959; K. Winkler, ‘“Clementia’’, RAC III 106-31; J. Ziegler, Dulcedo Dei, Alttesta-
mentliche Abhandlungen 13/2, 1937.
Gospel, Evangelize, Evangelist
Sion | edayyédiov (euangelion), good news, gospel; ebayyedila
(euangelizo), bring or announce good news, proclaim,
preach; mid. evayyedifouai (euangelizomai), bring good news, proclaim glad
tidings, proclaim, preach; ebayyediatyc (euangelistés), proclaimer of glad tidings
or of the gospel, evangelist.
cL 1. The mid. vb. euangelizomai (Aristophanes), euangelizoé, a form not encoun-
tered until later Gk., together with the adjectival noun evangelion (Homer) and
the noun euangelos (Aesch.), are all derived from angelos, messenger (probably an
Iranian loan-word originally), or the vb. ange//o (announce; — Angel). euangelos,
messenger, is one who brings a message of victory or other political or personal
news that causes joy. In the Hel. period the word can also mean one who announces
oracles. Similarly the vb. euangelizomai means to speak as a messenger of gladness,
to proclaim good news; and where it is used in a religious sense, to promise.
euangelizomai also gains a religious meaning when it is used in connection with the
appearance of a “divine man’’, whose approach is announced with joy (e.g. of
Apollonius of Tyana in Philostratus, VA 1, 28, 3rd cent. A.D.). On the other hand,
the vb. is often found with its original sense weakened to make it synonymous with
angello, to bear a message, announce.
2. The noun euangelion means: (a) the reward received by the messenger of
victory (his good news brings relief to the recipients; therefore he is rewarded);
(b) the message itself, chiefly a technical term for the message of victory, but also
used of political and private messages bringing joy. Such messages are seen as a gift
of the gods. When the message has been received, sacrifices are offered to them
107
GOSPEL
out of gratitude but also in order to hold the gods to their gift (cf. the phrase
euangelia thyein, to celebrate good news by sacrifice, first found in Isocrates).
“Behind such sacrifices lies the animist’s distrust of his own religious cult: hurry
to thank the gods for the message, or else you may miss the good fortune of which
it tells” (J. Schniewind, Euangelion, 1931, 182).
(c) It is chiefly in connection with oracles (i.e. the promise of some future event)
and in the imperial cult that evangelion acquires a religious meaning. In the latter
sphere news of the divine ruler’s birth, coming of age, or enthronement, and also
his speeches, decrees and acts are glad tidings which bring long hoped-for fulfil-
ment to the longings of the world for happiness and peace. An instance of this is the
decree of the Greeks of the province of Asia c. 9 B.c. marking the birthday of
Augustus (23 September) the beginning of the civil year: “It is a day which we may
justly count as equivalent to the beginning of everything —if not in itself and in
its own nature, at any rate in the benefits it brings — inasmuch as it has restored the
shape of everything that was failing and turning into misfortune, and has given a
new look to the Universe at a time when it would gladly have welcomed destruction
if Caesar had not been born to be the common blessing of all men. ... Whereas the
Providence (pronoia) which has ordered the whole of our life, showing concern and
zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving to it
Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men,
and by sending in him, as it were, a saviour for us and those who come after us, to
make war to cease, to create order everywhere ... and whereas the birthday of the
God [Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings [in the Greek
the ‘Evangel’] that have come to men through him ... Paulus Fabius Maximus,
the proconsul of the province. . . has devised a way of honouring Augustus hitherto
unknown to the Greeks, which is, that the reckoning of time for the course of
human life should begin with Ais birth’ (quoted from E. Barker, From Alexander
to Constantine: Passages and Documents Illustrating the History of Social and
Political Ideas 336 B.C.—A.D. 337, (1956) 1959, 211 f.; cf. W. Dittenberger, Orientis
Graeci Inscriptiones, II, No. 458; for other data on background see G. Friedrich,
TDNT II 721-5). The proclamation of this euangelion does not merely herald a
new era: it actually brings it about. The proclamation is itself the euangelion, since
the salvation it proclaims is already present in it.
3. It is not difficult to trace the connection between this religious use of the word
euangelion in the Hel. world, especially in the imperial cult, and its use in the NT.
The latter takes up a term widely used in the Hel. world and loaded with religious
concepts, when it speaks of its own euangelion or gospel. At the same time the OT
roots of the NT concept of evangelion must not be ignored.
oT |. In the Gk. translation of the OT euangelion never appears in the sing. form.
The plur., used to render the Heb. b°sorah, means reward for good news (2 Sam.
4:10). Occasionally euangelia, a form unknown in the NT, also appears for the
Heb. b°sorah in the sense of glad tidings (e.g. 2 Sam. 18:20, 22). On the whole,
however, the substantival forms are not of particular importance. Of greater
significance for the further development of the concept is the fact that the vb.
euangelizomai — which is likewise not found frequently elsewhere and is limited to a
few writings — comes to stand for the Heb. bissar, to announce, tell, publish (e.g.
108
GOSPEL
1 Ki. 1:42; Jer. 20:15). This verb is the term used in the Pss. 40:9[10]; 68:11[12];
96:2 ff. and Isa. 41:27 and 52:7 to herald Yahweh’s universal victory over the
world and his kingly rule. With his enthronement (cf. the enthronement psalms,
especially Ps. 96) and with his return to Zion (in Isa.) a new era begins. The mess-
enger of good tidings (m*bassér, substantival part., translated by euangelizomenos
in the LXX) announces this new era of world history and inaugurates it by his
mighty word. Peace and salvation have now come; Yahweh has become king
(Isa. 52:7; cf. also 40:9); his reign extends over the whole world (Ps. 96:2 ff.).
This “‘‘gospel’ is effective speech, a powerful saying, a word which brings its own
fulfilment. In the mouth of his messengers God himself speaks: he speaks and it is
accomplished; he commands and it is done (Ps. 33:6)” (G. Gloege in Theologie
fiir Nichttheologen, I, 1963, 100). The act of proclamation is itself the dawn of the
new era. Hence it is easy to understand the special significance that attaches to the
messenger of the good news. With his arrival on the scene and the delivery of his
message, salvation, redemption and peace become a reality. (Cf. on this Isa. 61:1,
where the connection between message and mission is particularly prominent; >
Apostle.)
2. When the LXX was translated, this concept of the messenger of glad tidings
and his powerful, effective word was no longer understood, and the meaning was
weakened. The proclamation of the message was separated from the action origin-
ally associated directly with it (cf. e.g. Isa. 52:7, where LXX translates: ““Your
God will be king’’). Neither Philo nor Josephus takes up the concept of the messen-
ger of glad tidings as found in Isa. in their use of euangelion and euangelizomai.
They use the words in the normal Hel. sense (cf. War, 2, 420; 4, 656; cf. TDNT II
725 f.). They do not therefore contribute anything further to our understanding of
the NT use of these terms. The same cannot however be said of Rab. Judaism.
3. Rab. Judaism kept alive the concept of the messenger of good tidings. He was
variously expected: as an unknown figure, the forerunner of the Messiah, or as
the Messiah himself (—~ Jesus Christ). The content of his message was already
familiar from Isa., and was therefore no longer of primary interest. The important
thing about him was rather that the m*®bassér is coming, and by his proclamation
he will usher in the era of salvation. Everything depends on his appearance and on
his act of proclamation (cf. Pes. R. 36 [162a] SB III 9ff.; cf. also 1QM 18:14, where
the messenger’s self-designation as ““‘messenger of good news”’ is a clear echo of
Isa. 61). Here the same observation may be made that was made concerning OT
usage. The eschatological event finds expression in the vb. (dissar means to preach
the eschatological message of joy) and in particular the participial noun (m*°basser,
the eschatological messenger of joy), but not in the noun. b*sérah, good news. This
fact suggests that the NT term euangelion is derived from Gk. usage rather than the
Heb., or more precisely from the language of the imperial cult. The question cannot
be decided with certainty, especially since ““The imperial cult and the Bible share the
view that accession to the throne, which introduces a new era and brings peace to
the world, is a gospel for men” (7 DNT II 725). The only difference, in fact, is in the
content of the euangelion.
NT |. Although the vb. euangelizomai and the noun euangelion are such important
NT terms, the two words are found with varying degrees of frequency in the
109
GOSPEL
various writings of the NT. euwangelizomai is found only once in Matt. (11:5). In
Lk.-Acts, on the other hand, it occurs 25 times, in Paul 21 times (including twice
in Eph.), twice in Heb., and 3 times in 1 Pet. In addition euangelizoé is found twice
in Rev. Although the vb. is not found in Mk., the noun occurs there 7 times, and 4
times in Matt. Luke, however, shows a distinctive predilection for the verbal form
euangelizomai; he uses the noun only twice (Acts 15:7 and 20:24). The noun
euangelion occurs particularly often in Paul (60 times, including 4 times in Eph.,
and 4 times in the Pastoral Epistles), and once each in 1 Pet. and Rev. The fact that
the Johannine writings (gospel and epistles) know neither the vb. nor the noun is
most remarkable. It may perhaps be explained by the characteristic theology under-
lying them, their so-called present eschatology. It would be a mistake, however, to
assume that because certain NT writings do not use the vb. or the noun, the thought
expressed by them is therefore completely lacking. In the Johannine writings, for
instance, the concept is expressed by terms like martyred, to witness, and martyria,
—> witness.
2. It has been questioned whether Jesus himself used the term euangelion (or,
to be more precise, its Heb. or Aram. equivalent) as a broad description of his
message. Nevertheless, the term is attributed to him in Mk. 1:15; 8:35; 10:29;
13:10; 14:9; [16:15]; Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; cf. also Mk. 1:1, 14). It is
possible that Jesus indicated that the words of messianic expectation in Isa. 35
and 61 are fulfilled in his words and actions (cf. Matt. 11:5 f. = Lk. 7:22, Q:
ptochoi euangelizontai, the glad tidings go out to the poor; also Lk. 4:18, where
Jesus refers to Isa. 61:1). But if so, they are fulfilled in a way which will disappoint
(Matt. 11:6) the expectations popularly attached to the messenger of glad tidings
in Isa. (i.e. political liberation and the destruction of Israel’s enemies). Certainly
the answer to the Baptist’s question in Matt. 11:5f. means that the glad tidings
awaited since Isa. are now being proclaimed and are already effective.
The really decisive question is not whether Jesus himself used the word euangelion
but whether it is a word appropriate to the substance of his message. There is no
doubt that Jesus saw his message of the coming — kingdom of God (Mk. 1:14)
which is already present in his word and action as good news. “Blessed are your
eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear’’ (Matt. 13:16). This message of
joy is no longer to be separated from the messenger who brings it, and this messen-
ger is Jesus himself (cf. Lk. 11:20; Matt. 5:1 f.; cf. TDNT IL 728 f.). Moreover, he
appears not only as the messenger and author of the message, but at the same time
as its subject, the one of whom the message tells. It is therefore quite consistent for
the early Christian church to take up the term evangelion to describe the message of
salvation connected with the coming of Jesus.
3. There is good reason to believe that it was Paul who established the term
euangelion in the vocabulary of the NT. That is not to say that he was the first to
use this word without further qualification for the total content of the message,
and to make it synonymous with the name of — Jesus Christ. On the contrary,
Paul’s frequent use of the word euangelion absolutely (at least 23 times without
further qualification to describe the content of the message) suggests that he was
taking over phraseology already familiar to his readers. The latter knew what the
content of the gospel was. It is thus reasonable to suppose that in the early churches
this terminology had developed by analogy out of that associated with the ‘“‘gospel”’
110
GOSPEL
of the imperial cult, though also in conscious opposition to the latter. In the sphere
of missionary outreach in particular, the message of salvation through Jesus Christ
came into conflict with the political, messianic message by reason of its universal
claims. It was inevitable that very soon OT statements and ideas, especially from
the prophecy of Isa., would become linked with this Hel. terminology, ‘This
could readily happen, not least because the connection between the Hellenistic-
Oriental concepts of the redeemer and the ideology of the saviour-king that stands
behind deutero-Isaiah was suggested by the subject matter itself’? (W. Schnee-
melcher in Henn. Schn., I, 72).
In Paul euangelion has become a central concept of his theology. It means the
familiar good news: that God has acted for the salvation (— redemption) of the
world in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. the development of
these ideas in confessional formulae in Rom. 1:1 ff.; 1 Cor. 15:1 ff.). In so far as
this event is already promised in the OT, the OT belongs to the gospel. (epangelia,
— promise, is closely related both linguistically and conceptually to euangelion,
and it is significant that the conflict of law and gospel appears in Paul’s writings in
connection with this term.) However, euangelion, as used by Paul, does not mean
only the content of what is preached, but also the act, process and execution of the
proclamation. Content and process of preaching are one. They are not separated
in thought (Rom. 1:1), apart from when they are set close alongside each other
(1 Cor. 9:14, 18). For in the very act of proclamation its content becomes reality,
and brings about the salvation which it contains. “The gospel does not merely
bear witness to salvation history; it is itself salvation history” (G. Friedrich,
TDNT II 731). The action of — proclamation is denoted not only by the vb.
euangelizomai (as e.g. in 1 Cor. 1:17), but also by euangelion used as a noun of
action. Thus in 2 Cor. 8:18 euangelion means preaching of the gospel. Similarly
the gen. in the phrases “‘gospel of God’’, or “‘gospel of Christ”, and “‘of the Son
of God” (e.g. Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 2:12) should be taken as both
objective and subjective: Christ or God is both the content and author of the gospel.
It is difficult to make a clear distinction here, since Paul sometimes stresses the one
aspect and sometimes the other. Wherever it is proclaimed (euangelizesthai in 2
Cor. 11:7; Gal. 1:11; kéryssein in Gal. 2:2; 1 Thess. 2:9; katangellein in 1 Cor.
9:14; lalein in 1 Thess. 2:2), this gospel is charged with power. It creates — faith
(Rom. 1:16 f.; Phil. 1:27), brings salvation, life (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:2) and also
—> judgment (Rom. 2:16). It reveals God’s — righteousness (Rom. 1:17), brings
the fulfilment of — hope (Col. 1:5, 23), intervenes in the lives of men, and creates
churches. Since this gospel is no invention of man (Gal. 1:11), but rather God or
Christ himself speaking through his messengers, the — apostles, the gospel is
closely associated with the apostolate (2 Cor. 10-13). (See also Gal. 2:7 f., where
euangelion in the sense of the proclamation of the message is clearly set out as the
purpose and content of the apostolé or apostolic mission of both Paul and Peter,
to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.) Just as in Isa. 40:9; 52:7; and Nah. 1:15
the heralds and watchmen on the walls proclaim the coming of God, so the mes-
sengers proclaim the gospel (Rom. 10:15). Paul was conscious of having been
called to bring the gospel to the Gentiles especially (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:16), and so
to carry the eschatological event beyond the borders of Israel (Rom. 15:9). His
whole activity was euangelizesthai (1 Cor. 1:17). As the “‘partner of the gospel’’
111
GOSPEL
(1 Cor. 9:23), therefore, he could speak of “‘his gospel’’ (e.g. Rom. 16:25; 2 Cor.
4:3). By this he meant the one gospel which was preached in Jerusalem (Gal. 1 : 6-9;
2 Cor. 10:13-16) and which has only now broken out of the bounds of the Jewish
law, and become the gospel for the Gentiles, freed from the law (Gal. 1:16; 2:7, 8;
Rom. 1:15). Paul’s opponents, on the other hand, have “‘another gospel’ (Gal.
1:6-10; 2 Cor. 11:4). They make attacks upon Paul. But since apostleship and the
preaching of the gospel belong together, every attack on Paul and his apostleship
is an attack on the gospel, and vice versa. To preach the gospel is not to commend
oneself, but — as if compelled (1 Cor. 9:16) — to commend the Lord (2 Cor. 10:18;
4:5; Gal. 1:10).
4. In the Synoptic Gospels likewise, euangelion is the name given to the good
news of the saving event in Jesus Christ, as preached in the church. The separate
evangelists do, however, have different emphases when it comes to detail. These are
conditioned by their respective theological outlooks:
(a) Mark stands very close to the Pauline use of euangelion, always using it
absolutely except at 1:1 and 1:14. Since it is evident that he uses it in redactional
passages, scholars have assumed that he was the one who introduced this word
(taking it over perhaps from Paul) into the synoptic tradition. Matt. and Lk. are
dependent on him, but modify his ideas. Mk., like Paul, sees Jesus Christ as both
content and author of the gospel. Where it is proclaimed, he is present and at
work — present to such a degree that what is done for the gospel’s sake is done for
Jesus’ sake as well (Mk. 8:35; 10:29). The content of this gospel is the history of
Jesus with its individual events (cf. Mk. 14:5). Mk. does not record them merely
out of historical interest, but rather uses the narrative about Jesus in order to
express what the gospel is. It is not information about a glorious divine redeemer,
but the message of salvation through the suffering Son of man whose hidden glory
as — Son of God did not become apparent except to his followers (— disciple) on
the way of the cross. Mk. therefore sets evangelion as a kind of title over his whole
book (1:1, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’’); this
means that these stories are not merely reports about Jesus, but an address. They are
the good news in which Jesus is proclaimed as the living Lord and in which he
himself addresses the readers of the Gospel of Mark, bringing about and strengthen-
ing faith (Mk. 1:15).
(b) In contrast with this use of euangelion in Mk., Matt. never uses the word
without further qualifying it as “the gospel of the kingdom” (4:23; 9:35) or “‘this
gospel” (26:13; cf. also 24:14). In so doing he has shifted the emphasis. In the
foreground now is the idea of Jesus as the bringer and proclaimer of the gospel.
The content of the gospel is now to be seen chiefly in the — teaching in which
Jesus instructs his disciples (4:23; 9:35; 24:14; but in 26:13 “‘gospel’’ refers to the
passion narrative). But in so far as the church passes on this gospel, Jesus himself
is also its content (cf. especially Matt. 24:14; 26:13).
(c) In Luke-Acts the term euangelion is found only at Acts 15:7 and 20:24.
Possibly this has to do with his particular scheme, according to which the era of
Jesus must be distinguished from the era of the church, and so too the preaching of
Jesus from that of the apostles. Thus he can describe as evangelion the apostolic
preaching (Acts 15:7; 20:24), but not the preaching of Jesus. Particularly instruc-
tive in this context is the alteration of euangelion in Mk. 10:29 to basileia in Lk.
112
GOSPEL
18:29. This suggestion is not upset by the fact that Lk. evidently has a special
predilection for the vb. euangelizesthai. It no longer has the pregnant meaning
which it has for Paul, who uses it to embrace the whole work of Jesus, but has
almost become a technical term for proclamation. Further evidence in this direction
is provided by the fact that it is used interchangeably with other verbs of — pro-
clamation like kéryssein (cf. here the Markan version behind Lk. 4:43; 9:6; and
also Lk. 4:18), katangellein (Acts 13:5, 38; 15:36; 16:17; 17:23; 26:23), didaskein
(Lk. 20:1, — teach). Moreover, Lk. generally qualifies this oral proclamation by a
phrase like “kingdom of God”’ (4:43; 8:1) or “Jesus” (Acts 5:42; 8:25; 11:20).
Thus Lk. can also describe the Baptist’s activity as euangelizesthai (3:18), although
he explicitly stresses that the kingdom of God was not proclaimed until after the
Baptist (16:16). euangelizesthai thus practically regains here its broader, more
general Hel. meaning of proclaiming good news, and is no longer a term with
christological overtones. |
5. The other NT writings which use evangelion or euangelizomai on the whole
follow the above outline of Paul. They tend to bring out certain aspects of this
powerful gospel which is not a human word but the word of God (1 Pet. 1:12). It
was entrusted to Paul as a preacher, apostle and teacher (2 Tim. 1:11). Its message
of Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, and descended from David (2 Tim. 2:8) is not
limited to a single, past event, but is experienced as a word charged with power in
the present so that it cannot be fettered by human chains (2 Tim. 2:9). This gospel
produces rebirth and new life (1 Pet. 23-25). It brings peace (Eph. 2:17; 6:15), and
draws together the near and the far off, the Gentiles and the Jews (Eph. 3:1-9). It gives
salvation (Eph. 1:13), and has “‘brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. 1:10).
6. However varied may be the emphasis and development of the term euangelion
in the NT, the reference is always to the oral proclamation of the message of
salvation and never to something fixed in writing, such as a > book or a letter. This
is shown not least by the synonyms of euangelion and euangelizomai: kéryssein,
katangellein, lalein, logos, etc. This oral message is one, even if Paul speaks of
“his” gospel (euangelion mou, Rom. 2:16). The NT knows only the gospel; the plur.
‘the gospels’ is a contradiction of its nature (G. Bornkamm, RGG? II 749),
Nevertheless, from the 2nd cent. onwards reference is made to gospels, meaning
the written gospels (cf. Iren., Haer. 3, 11, 8; cf. 3, 1, 1; Clem. Alex., Strom, 1, 136,
1; cf. Lampe, 555 ff.). This is the outcome of a development which can be traced in
its origin back to Mk. Mk. associated the gospel with the stories about Jesus which
he had written down, but he did not identify the two. The introductory phrase
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (1:1) clearly does not mean that in
what follows he is writing a biography of Jesus (see above 4 (a)). This identification
did, however, take place at a later stage as a result of an historicizing tendency
which may already be seen in Matt. and Lk. Hence, “‘gospel’’ came to be used as a
description of a book, and consequently the plural form ta euangelia became poss-
ible as a collective term for these “‘reports”’. This was not yet true in the case of
Lk. For in his prologue (1:1-4) he did not employ the term “‘gospels’’ for the
narratives about Jesus which were evidently in bountiful supply in his day. Instead
he used diégésis, narrative. In the course of the 2nd cent., however, this use of the
term for a type of literature without parallel in the NT world became established.
At the same time the NT insight was retained. For the four gospels “testify to the
113
GOSPEL
one gospel, to the proclamation of salvation in Jesus Christ’? (W. Schneemelcher,
Henn. Schn., IJ, 75). Similarly Luther declared: ““The gospel . . . is not in truth that
which is written in books and set down in letters, but rather a spoken message and
living word, and a voice which sounds out into the world and is publicly pro-
claimed, that it may be heard everywhere” (Weimarer Ausgabe XII, 259).
7. euangelistés is a term for one who proclaims the euangelion. This word, which
is very rare in non-Christian literature, but common enough in early Christian
writings, is found in the NT only at Acts 21:8 (of Philip who had been one of the
Seven, Acts 6:5; cf. also 8:5 ff.), Eph. 4:11 (along with apostles, prophets, pastors
and teachers), and in 2 Tim. 4:5 (of Timothy). In these three passages the evangelist
is distinguished from the apostle. This is especially obvious in the case of the evan-
gelist Philip, whose activity has to be ratified by the apostles Peter and John (Acts
8:14 f.). The term euangelistés is thus clearly intended to refer to people who carry
on the work of the apostles who have been directly called by the risen Christ. But
it is difficult to decide whether the reference is to an office, or simply to an activity.
These evangelists may have been engaged in missionary work (Acts 21:8), or church
leadership (2 Tim. 4:5). As a term for the author of a gospel, euangelistés is not
found before the time when euangelion is used to describe a book and “gospels”
are spoken of (cf. Lampe, 559). U. Becker
—> Confess, > Law, — Proclaim, — Scripture, ~ Teach, — Word
(a). R. S. Barbour, Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels: Some Comments on Current
Methods, 1972; K. Barth, God, Grace and Gospel, 1959; J. W. Bowman, “The term Gospel and its
Cognates in the Palestinian Syriac’’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed.. New Testament Essays: Studies in
Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1959, 54-67; F. F. Bruce, ‘‘Galatian Problems 3: The ‘Other’
Gospel”, BJRL 53, 1971, 253-71; Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament,1974; and
“The Speeches in Acts -— Thirty Years After’’, in R. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope, 1974,
53-68; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 87 ff.; The History of the Synoptic
Tradition, 19687; M. Burrows, “The Origin of the Term Gospel’, JBL 44, 1925, 21-33; H.
Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 1960; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, reprinted
1971; C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 1936; and Gospel and Law, 1951;
C. F. Evans, ““The Kerygma’’, JTS 7, 1956, 25-41; G. Friedrich, euangelizomai, euangelion, TDNT
II 707-37; K. Grayston, “‘“Not Ashamed of the Gospel’’’, StudEv 11 1964, 569-73; F. W.
Grosheide, ‘“The Pauline Epistles as Kerygma’’, in Studia Paulina in Honorem J. de Zwaan, 1953,
139-43; R. H. Gundry, “Recent Investigations into the Literary Genre ‘Gospel’ ’’, in R. N.
Longenecker and M. C. Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament Study, 1974, 97-114;
D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, I, 1965, The Gospels and Acts; W. H. P. Hatch,
“The Primitive Christian Message’, JBL 58, 1939, 1-39; S. Johnson, The Theology of the Gospels,
1966; W. G. Kimmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 19757; X. Léon-Dufour, The Gospels and
the Jesus of History 1968; W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 1969; C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of
the New Testament, 1962; and ““The Intention of the Evangelists’’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed., op. cit.,
165-79; H. Palmer, The Logic of Gospel Criticism, 1968; J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of
the Evangelists, 1968; B. Reicke, ‘“‘A Synopsis of Early Christian Preaching’’, in A. Fridrichsen,
ed., The Root of the Vine, 1953, 128-60; J. Schmid, ‘“‘Gospel’”’, EBT I 328-32; W. Schneemelcher,
“Gospels: Non-Biblical Material about Jesus”, in Henn.-Schn., I, 69-84; R. H. Strachan, “‘The
Gospel in the New Testament”’, JB VII 3-31; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924; V. Taylor,
The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 1933; H. G. Wood, ‘“‘Didache, Kerygma and Evangelion’’,
in A. J. B. Higgins, op. cit., 306-14.
(b). M. Albertz, Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, 1/1, 1947; R. Asting, Die Verktindigung des
Wortes im Urchristentum, 1939; P. Blaser, ‘‘Evangelium’’, Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe,
I, 1962, 355 ff.; G. Gloege, “‘Evangelium’’, Theologie fiir Nichttheologen, I, 1963, 97 ff.; E. Haen-
chen, Der Weg Jesu. Eine Erklarung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen, 1966;
A. Harnack, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Kirchenverfaysung in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten,
114
GOSPEL/GRACE
1910, 234 ff.; P. Hoffmann, ed., Orientierung an Jesus. Zur Theologie der Synoptiker. Fiir Josef
Schmid, 1973 (see especially the article by R. Schnackenburg.); O. Michel, ‘“Evangelium’’, RAC VI,
1965, 1107 ff.; E. Molland, Das paulinische Evangelium. Das Wort und die Sache, 1934; H. Ristow
and K. Matthiae, Der historische Jesus und der Kerygmatische Christus, 19612; W. Schmauch,
“Evangelium”, EKL I 1213 ff.; K. L. Schmidt, “‘Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen
Literaturgeschichte’’, Eucharisterion, 11 (dedicated to H. Gunkel), 1925, 50-134; J. Schniewind,
Euangelion. Ursprung und erste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium, (1927-31) 1937-41; E. Schweizer,
“Die theologische Leistung des Markus”, EvTh 24, 1964, 337 ff.; G. Strecker, Der Weg der
Gerechtigkeit. Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthdus, 19662; and ‘“‘Literarische Uberlegungen
zum euangelion-Begriff im Markusevangelium’’, in H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke, eds., Neues
Testament und Geschichte. O. Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag, 1972, 91-104.
Grace, Spiritual Gifts
yapic (charis), grace, gracefulness, graciousness, favour,
thanks, gratitude; ydpioua (charisma), gift given out of
goodwill; yapiCopuati (charizomai), show favour or kindness, give as a favour, to be
gracious to someone, to pardon; yapitow (charitod), endue with grace.
cL 1. Words formed from the Gk. root char indicate things which produce well-
being. They belong to the Indo-European family of words which includes Old
High German ger (greed); New High German Geier (vulture; cf. Eng. gerfalcon);
Lat. caritas; Eng. greedy; cf. chara (— Joy). charis (from Homer on) which is not
always clearly distinguished in literature from chara (from Sappho on) means that
which brings wellbeing among men (cf. charma), while chara ( — Joy) is the indivi-
dual experience or expression of this wellbeing. From this basic meaning of the
noun the individual meanings of charis are derived: grace, favour, beauty, thank-
fulness, gratitude, delight, kindness; expression of favour, good turn, benefit; in the
plur. debt of gratitude, gratitude, recompense, thanks (these meanings from
Euripides on). The acc. sing. with echein means to be grateful; with the addition
of pros tina it means to have someone’s goodwill. Linked with apodounai, or ophelein,
the acc. sing. means to return thanks or to owe thanks. Indicative of the character-
istic use of the noun are: (a) the combinations (without the article) with eis, for
Someone’s good, as a favour; en, for the benefit of; pros, to oblige someone, in
kindness, as desired; syn, to the satisfaction of; (b) the adverbial use charin tinos to
someone’s advantage, for someone’s sake, on account of.
charis designates not only the attitude of the gods but also that of men (e.g. the
emperor’s dispensations). Like charma (cf. Lat. carmen, spell, whence charm, French
charme), charis can also designate the physical causes of the benevolent gift, charm,
attraction, and in the plur. it can mean amiable characteristics. In mythology per-
sonifications of charis occur: Charis is the exceedingly beautiful wife of Hephaestus;
hai Charités, the Graces, are the creators and bestowers of charm.
2. The derived noun charisma, gracious gift, donation (only from God to men)
is found in pre-Christian literature only in one LXX version of Sir. 7:33; 38:30;
Ps. 30:20 (Theod.); Philo. Leg. All. 3, 78; Sib. 2, 54. In post-Christian secular
literature it occurs in Alciphron 3, 17, 4 (2nd cent. A. D.) meaning a benevolently
dispensed gift (cf. Arndt, 887).
115
GRACE
3. The vb. charizomai (common from Homer onwards) does not occur with
God as its subject until Aelius Aristides (2nd cent. A.D.), when it means to give
graciously. When applied to men’s dealing with one another, it means to do
something pleasant for someone, to be kind, gracious, or obliging, to oblige or
gratify someone (from Diodorus Siculus, Ist cent. B.c.). With the construction
tini pros ti, it is used in the sense of courting a god’s favour by sacrifice; and in the
case of a woman, to grant favours, to indulge her passions. charisamenos used
absolutely means as a favour. In the context of ethics and law it means to grant,
remit, forgive, or pardon, with the dat. of the person and the acc. of the thing (since
Dionysius of Halicarnassos, Ist cent. B.c.). It is used particularly in the sense of
granting someone’s life (to a third party), i.e. to set him free to please someone
(cf. NT below on Acts 3:14; 25:11, 16; 27:24; Phlm. 22). In the perf. and plupf.
pass. the vb. means to be pleasant, agreeable, or desired. The perf. part. has the
sense of a noun, pleasantness, agreeableness (cf. the formula hos kecharismenoi, as
those who have received a gift).
4. The vb. charito6é occurs only in a few LXX and extra-canonical passages (Sir.
18:17; Ps. 17:26 [Sym.]; Aristeas 225 and Test. Jos. 1:6), always with reference
to divine blessing. Otherwise it is confined to the NT and late post-Christian secular
literature (Libanius, 4th cent.).
oT 1. The LXX uses the word charis about 190 times of which only about 75 have a
Heb. equivalent. Among the equivalents the noun hén (61 times) is the most
frequent, mostly in the sense favour, inclination. It rarely means attractiveness,
beauty, charm (e.g. Ps. 45:2 [MT 45:3; LXX 44:3]). Occasionally it is used as an
adj. (Prov. 1:9; 4:9; 5:19). Other equivalents are rdsén, what is acceptable (between
men, Prov. 10:32), favour which one seeks from God (Prov. 11:27), favour which
one obtains from God (Prov. 12:2); hesed (twice), favour (Est. 2:9, 17, here
parallel to hén); raham (twice, plur.;—> Mercy, arts. oiktirmos and splanchna),
brotherly feeling (Dan. 1:9), compassion (Gen. 43:14) once each; t6b, a good
thing (Prov. 18:22); g*diulah, sign of honour (Est. 6:3); as a conjunction or pre-
position bammeh, why (2 Chr. 7:21); biglal, on account of (variant of 1 Ki. 14:16);
halag (Ezek. 12:24), accommodating with smooth flattery (W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel,
BKAT ad loc.).
2. (a) The use of the word hén clarifies the meaning of “grace” in history and
actions. It denotes the stronger coming to the help of the weaker who stands in
need of help by reason of his circumstances or natural weakness. He acts by a
voluntary decision, though he is moved by the dependence or the request of the
weaker party. A typical expression used to describe such an event from the stand-
point of the weak is the formula to find favour in someone’s eyes, i.e. to acquire his
favour, liking, benevolence, condescension, and understanding. The action itself
is what makes the weaker party acceptable: e.g. Jacob to Esau (Gen. 32:5, MT
32:6); Joseph to Potiphar and Pharaoh’s men (Gen. 3:4 and 50:4); the Egyptians
to Joseph (Gen. 47:25); Ruth to Boaz (Ruth 2:2, 10, 13); a young wife to her
husband (here in the negative, Deut. 24:1); Hannah to Eli (1 Sam. 1:18); David to
Saul and Jonathan (1 Sam. 16:22; 20:3); Joab to David (2 Sam. 14:22); Esther
to the king (Est. 8:5 etc.). This acceptance is desired (Zech. 4:7) or experienced
(Eccl. 9:11) as fortune or salvation. Often it can only be understood as the result
116
GRACE
of the special intervention of God who supplies grace to the weak (Gen. 39:21;
Exod. 3:21; 11:3; 12:36).
(b) hén denotes relatively seldom the activity of God. It is used mostly in. the
sense of his undeserved gift in election. Noah (Gen. 6:8) is singled out of mankind
sentenced to destruction (cf. below on Gen. 8:21 f.). The choice of this one indivi-
dual allows us to recognize mercy in the midst of judgment. Moses, the chosen
mediator, was permitted to remind Yahweh of his electing gift (Exod. 33:12, 13a)
and therefore request a renewed gift of Yahweh (Exod. 33:13b, 16; cf. Num. 11:1),
recognizable as Yahweh’s care in history for the — covenant people and renewed
on account of the mediator’s intercession (Exod. 33:17). David also surrendered
himself in moments of crisis to the providence of God (2 Sam. 15:25). Bowing
before God, — humility and petition appear here not as necessary preconditions
of the merciful gift of God, but as the way open to man. Wisdom literature recog-
nized, in the relationship between man’s humility and divine grace, something of the
character of a law (Prov. 3:34, taken up in | Pet. 5:5). The translation of Zech.
12:10 1s disputed: AV “‘spirit of grace’’, RSV “‘spirit of compassion.’ The passages
refer to the eschatological outpouring of the spirit upon men (cf. Joel 2:28 [MT
3:1]) which is described as ‘‘a spirit of compassion and supplication” (RSV). The
meaning lies somewhere between ‘“sympathy’’, ‘“‘commiseration’ (Koehler-
Baumgartner, 314) and being touched (K. Elliger, Kleine Propheten, ATD 25,
19678 ad loc.). It is followed by tah*niinim also from the root hnn (RSV “supplica-
tion’). (See further J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1972, 190 ff.)
(c) Even the postponement in history of punishment is a gracious act of God
(2 Ki. 13:23, hnn). Where the concept is not found, the idea frequently is (e.g.
1 Ki. 21:29; 2 Ki. 10:30; 14:26). Various writers on OT theology rightly point out
that, over and above the occurrences of the concept of grace, the OT teaches
that “‘every creature lives by the grace of God” (L. Koehler, Old Testament
Theology, 1957, 124) and that Yahweh’s grace “‘produces everything that furthers life”’
(G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 229). The theological ideas of the
Yahwist in which the increase of sin is followed by the greater increase of grace
must be considered here: deluge followed by the Noahic covenant (esp. Gen.
8:21 f.); the tower of — Babel followed by the Abrahamic covenant for the blessing
of all peoples (Gen. 11-12). In Ps. 63:3 (MT 63:4) the OT is already advancing to
the “‘discovery of the spiritual as a reality beyond the frailty of the corporeal’’
(von Rad, op. cit., I, 403): ““Thy steadfast love [Gk. eleos —> mercy] is better than
life.”
3. In addition to the established OT concepts, the apocryphal Wisdom Literature
speaks of grace as a reward for good works which include benevolence (Sir. 12:1;
17:22; 35:2; 40:17; the pass. is used as a substitute for the divine name), renuncia-
tion and self-denial, especially that of the martyr (Wis. 3:14 tés pisteds charis, the
gracious reward of faith for “‘the eunuch whose hands have done no lawless deeds’’ ;
cf. Isa. 56:3 ff.). On the grace of martyrdom, see 4 Macc. 11:12 where the tyrant
is said to bestow great favour through enabling the martyr in his suffering to
demonstrate his loyalty to the law.
4. In the Qumran texts a distinctive theology of grace is found. It is linked
particularly with the concept hesed and also with rdsén. hén is not mentioned. It is
a theology which, within the bounds of covenant grace (1QM 12, 3 etc.; — Mercy,
117
GRACE
art. eleos OT), expresses in confession and prayer hope for the gift of God reserved
for the individual (1QS 11:12 f. [through his showing favour comes my justifica-
tion’’]; 1QH 2:23, 25; 4:37; 7:27, 35; 9:10 [“I chose judgment upon myself. . . for
I wait for your mercy’’]; 9:14 [“hope ... through your mercy”’]; 11:31; 16:12).
Although the Qumran and Pauline documents stand close to each other in their
deep recognition of human sin and the consequent knowledge that God can justify
and pardon, a fundamental difference exists. Radical liberation from the — law
has not yet taken place (cf. H. Braun, see bibliography; H. Conzelmann, An Outline
Theology of the New Testament, 1969, 223 ff.). The divine pleasure (rds6n) works as
providence and foreknowledge which make possible knowledge and a change for
the good (1QS 11:18; 10:6; 14:13 etc.). Through obedience and sacrifice this
good pleasure can be influenced (1QS 9:4 f.; 1QM 2:5).
5. Rab. literature contains more than a one-sided doctrine of justification by
works. On the one hand, grace can be procured by human behaviour (cf. SB I
767 f.; II 152). Grace may come about only where works are lacking, for rewards
are given only for deeds (2 Esd. 8:31-33, 36; cf. SB III 201 on Rom. 4:4; 268 on
Rom. 9:15 = Exod. 33:19; further IV 21 ff. Excursus on the Sermon on the Mount).
On the other hand, there is the belief that grace is necessary for every action. Grace
initiates and completes even the actions of the elect (Aristeas 195; cf. SB III 618 f.).
The divine reward is a reward of grace (cf. SB IV 486 ff. on Matt. 20:1-16). Accord-
ing to SB IV 490, the early synagogue did not hold fast the idea of reward by grace.
It even denied that one could recognize election by success in the world. The success-
ful man may be suspected of having already forfeited his future reward.
NT The NT employs the term charis 155 times, mostly in the Pauline letters (100
times) especially in 1 and 2 Cor. (10 and 18 times), Rom. (24 times) and Eph.
(12 times). In the Catholic Epistles it is found most frequently in 1 Pet. (10 times);
it occurs in Heb. (8 times). Acts uses charis 17 times, Lk. 8 and Jn. 4; the word is
lacking in Matt. and Mk. With the exception of one text in 1 Pet., charisma is an
exclusively Pauline concept (16 times). charizesthai occurs only in Paul (16 times)
and Luke (Lk. 3 times; Acts 4 times), likewise charitoun (once each).
1. In Jesus’ teaching the concept of grace in the sense of the undeserved gift of.
God evidently did not occur. But the theme of his teaching and his acts as a whole
centred on God’s condescension to the weak, poor, hopeless, lost (Matt. 11:5,
28 ff.; Mk. 10:26 ff.; Lk. 15). Immeasurable remission of debt (Matt. 18:21-34),
gracious reward in the kingdom of God (Matt. 20:1-16), and pardon leading to a
new life (Lk. 13:6-8; 7:36-50; 19:9 f.) are central themes in his ministry.
2. (a) In the few places where Lk. introduces the concept of grace into Jesus’
words it means reward in the last day, payment for something taken as a matter of
course (Lk. 6:32-34; cf. Matt. 5:46; Lk. 17:9), and means almost the opposite
to its basic meaning. In Lk. 4:22 the expression “words of grace”’ seems to include
both the astonishing rhetorical force of Jesus’ words, his authority (see v. 22c “Is
not this Joseph’s son?’’; cf. Eph. 4:29; Col. 4:6), the boldness of his claims (cf.
v. 21 with vv. 18 f.), and also the content of his teaching (Matt. 11:5; cf. above
1 (a)).
Otherwise Lk. uses charis in its OT sense to express the favour and the accepta-
bility of Mary or the child Jesus before God (1:30; 2:40) and men (2:52; quoting
118
GRACE
1 Sam. 2:26). In the history of doctrine a special significance attaches to the angel’s
greeting to Mary, ‘Favoured one!” (kecharitomené Lk. 1:28; AV, “highly fa-
voured’’). This does not exalt Mary in her essential being over the rest of mankind.
(The same is true of Stephen, for example, who is full of grace, Acts 6:8.) But
Mary is promised as a special favour of God a unique role in the history of God’s
saving purposes, of being the handmaid of the Lord, and this came about (genoito,
Lk. 1:38).
(b) In Acts grace is that power which flows from God or from the exalted Christ,
and accompanies the activity of the apostles giving success to their mission (Acts
6:8; 11:23; 14:26; 15:40; 18:27). It appears in “the word of grace’”’ which is identi-
cal with the > gospel (13:43; 20:24). The Lord himself confirms it (14:3). It is that
which enables men to believe (18:27). The word of grace is that which builds
up believers (20:32). Even where the sense “favour with men” is present God’s
initiative is the decisive factor (2:47; 4:33). It occurs exclusively in the sense of
human favour only in 24:27; 25:3, 9. The Pauline contrast of law and grace (cf.
4 (a)) is echoed in the Peter’s speech which contrasted the unnecessary “‘yoke”’
(zygos, see Matt. 11:28 ff.) of — circumcision with “‘the grace of the Lord Jesus”
(15:10 f.).
charizesthai is employed in Acts 4 times in the sense of granting someone’s life
to a third party (3:14; 27:24) and handing over someone (25:11, 16).
3. In Jn. charis occurs 4 times in the prologue only, where it is perhaps influenced
by Pauline thought. It plays no further part in the Gospel. The antithesis of law and
grace (1:17) is typically Pauline (cf. 4 (a)). The evangelist has here, as in 1:14 (cf.
Exod. 34:6, “abounding in steadfast love [hesed] and faithfulness [’*met]), linked
charis with one of his favourite concepts, — truth. As in Paul, the event of Christ
(here in particular in his earthly life) is identified with grace. As in Eph., Col., and
the Pastorals (see below 5 and 6), grace is seen as the essence of his — glory (doxa, Vv.
14); it is poured out in overflowing — fullness (charin anti charitos, ‘grace upon
grace,” v. 17; cf. v. 14). In the teaching of Jn. as a whole, the gift which the Revealer
brings such as “‘life’ and ‘“‘light’’ are identified with Jesus Christ himself, and can
only be understood as gifts of his grace (— “I am”’ sayings).
4. For Paul charis is the essence of God’s decisive saving act in Jesus Christ,
which took place in his sacrificial death, and also of all its consequences in the
present and future (Rom. 3:24 ff.). Therefore, the use of charis at the beginning
and end of the Pauline letters is much more than a mere polite cliché. ‘“‘Grace’’ is
not just a good wish for salvation; it is qualified as the grace of Christ (cf. 2 Cor.
13:13 [EVV v. 14], where it is linked with the name of Jesus).
(a) The apostle unfolds the reality and power of charis in a stubborn conflict
with Rab. ideas of justification by works and synergism (see above oT 5; > Law
NT 2). This leads him to set up in contrast two antithetical, mutually exclusive
series of ideas: grace, gift, the righteousness of God, superabundance, faith, gospel,
calling, in grace and hope on the one side; and law, reward, sin, works, accomplish-
ment owed, one’s own righteousness, honour, worldly wisdom, futility on the
other side. The person and work of the Son made it possible for justice in the
judge’s pardon not to conflict with grace (Rom. 3:21 ff.; 8:32; Gal. 2:20 f.; Phil.
2:8 ff.). In Christ, therefore, God’s grace is given as a precious gift (1 Cor. 1:4).
Apart from him there can be no talk of grace (cf. 1 Cor. 1:30 f.; see also Jn. 1:14,
119
GRACE
16f.). But this also means that grace can never become a quality which an indivi-
dual may possess in his own right, nor may it ever be placed at his disposal.
(b) In the following extracts from his letters Paul uses the series of ideas men-
tioned above, or aspects of them. charis occurs in a central position, or at the
climax of the argument. Most often it is defined by means of a contrast.
(i) Rom. 3:21-31: Men are justified by his (God’s) grace as a gift (dorean; —
Gift, art. doron) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (v. 24). Here grace
is pardon by the divine judge who reckons to the sinner the — righteousness of
Christ.
(ii) Rom. 4:2, 25: The ideas “‘of grace [kata charin]’ and ‘‘as debt [kata
opheiléma]’, i.e. a reward for work accomplished, are mutually exclusive (v. 4).
“That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promises may rest on grace and
be guaranteed to all his [Abraham’s] descendants — not only to the adherents of the
law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all’’
(v. 16). Only the free gift of God ensures the extension of the saving —> promise
to all men.
(iii) Rom. 5:15-21 and 6:1: Rom. 5:15 declares that “‘the free gift [charisma]
is not like the trespass [paraptoma].’’ Here charisma is used in the sense of charis.
charisma is the gift of life, which as “‘the grace of God and the free gift in the grace
of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many”’ (v. 15, cf. by contrast v. 20b).
But grace is not given to let men go on in — sin (6:1). It does not owe its origin
to sin, nor can it be manipulated by men. It is a new reality, a dominion estab-
lished once and for all by Jesus Christ. Like a mighty lord, it exercises kingly rule
(basileuein). Its ground is the new — righteousness of Christ, and its — goal is
eternal — life (5:21).
(iv) Rom. 6:12-23 carries this thought further. Vv. 14 f. argue that the man who
has died with Christ and lives in him (cf. v. 11) no longer lives under the dominion
of sin (hamartia), but under that of grace. V. 15 takes up the formula and guards
against its misunderstanding (as above in 6:1 f.). God’s gracious gift (charisma) of
eternal life has made the power of death as the wages of sin something that belongs
to the past which is now done away with (v. 21 ff.).
(v) Rom. 11:5 f.: “God’s gracious choice’ (eklogé charitos) and the life based on
—> “‘works’’ (ex ergon) have nothing in common. Otherwise grace would no longer
be pure grace. It would be compromised by the Rab. principle of accomplishment
and achievement (see above OT 5).
(vi) 2 Cor. 1:12. To the Jewish desire for control of one’s fate through works of
law (see (i), (ii), (v)) corresponds the Greek striving for autonomy by means of
earthly —- wisdom (sophia sarkiké). Grace opposes the pride of both as the sole
source of power for the apostolic mission (see below) and for the Christian’s life
(cf. 1 Cor. 1:30f.).
(vii) In Gal. 2:21 Paul formulates the climax of his theology of grace: “I do not
nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law [dia nomou], then
Christ died to no purpose” (here dorean in its negative sense).
(viii) Gal. 5:1-6. Paul accuses the Galatian churches in v. 4 of doing what he
repudiated for himself in 2:21, i.e. of wanting by implication to be justified through
the law. By doing this he says that they are “severed from Christ’? and “‘fallen
120
GRACE
away from grace.” They have plunged into the abyss of their own righteousness
and thus of bondage.
(c) Apart from the antithetic use of charis and law, Paul employs the concept of
grace in various other connections. (i) With the exclamation “‘but thanks be to
God” (charis de t6 theo or té de thed charis; Rom. 6:17; 7:25; 1 Cor. 15:57; 2 Cor.
2:14; 8:16; 9:15) at crucial points in his letters Paul praises the gracious acts of
God (Rom. 7:25; cf. 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:3; and in Heb. 12:28 the phrase echomen
charin, “let us be grateful’? [RSV]). (ii) When one partakes in that which is by
nature good without a load on the conscience, one does it “with thankfulness”
(chariti) (1 Cor. 10:30). (ii) The spiritual song is understood as thankfulness to
God (Col. 3:16). (iv) In 1 Cor. 16:3 and 2 Cor. 8:6, 7, 19, charis is the technical
term for the gift of gratitude and love (RSV, NEB, “‘gift’’) for the collection for the
Jerusalem community.
(d) Arising out of the basic act of pardon and legal acquittal (Rom. 8:31 ff.),
Paul understands the whole movement of the Christian life from beginning to end
as grace (2 Cor. 6:1-9; Rom. 5:2; cf. also Jn. 1:16). It is guaranteed by being
anchored in the purpose of God (prothesis) (Rom. 8:28). Human weakness, not
self-determination, is its sphere of activity (2 Cor. 12:9). The grace of God makes
the new man what he is (1 Cor. 15:10). (It might even be said that he remains as
dependent on it as the released prisoner is upon the connections, help and tasks
offered by the after-care service which make life in freedom possible for ‘him.)
This is as true of the apostolic mission in particular (Rom. 1:5; 12:3; 15:5; 1 Cor.
3:10; Gal. 2:9; Phil. 1:7) as it is of the Christian life in general (Rom. 12:3, 6;
1 Cor. 1:4 ff.; 2 Cor. 4:15; 6:1; 8:1; 9:8, 14; Phil. 1:7, grace as the bond of
fellowship). The relationship with Christ is frequently expressed by dia, through.
When grace is said to be ‘‘given’’, or to “overflow” etc., the intention is to acknow-
ledge its reality in human life, and not to imply that it is a thing or an object.
(e) The manifold outworking of the one grace in individual Christians through
the one — Spirit is called by Paul charisma, a personal endowment with grace.
This is the specialized use of charisma as distinct from the general (see above on
Rom. 5:15 f.; 6:23). In Rom. 12 and 1 Cor. 12 Paul develops the meaning of this
special, spiritual endowment for service for the life of the community. It has both
inward and outward-looking aspects: prophecy as a gift of proclamation, service,
teaching (didaskalia), spiritual exhortation (paraklésis), leadership in the congrega-
tion, and also beneficence and compassion (— Mercy; cf. Rom. 12:6-8). In add-
ition Paul has already listed in 1 Cor. 12:9 ff. and 28 ff. — faith, the gift of healing,
special authority to distinguish between spirits, speaking in tongues, the interpre-
tation of tongues and, as first in the order of functions, the service of the — apostle
(v. 28). It is inconceivable to Paul that there should be any Christian without some
gift of grace. At the same time, a single individual may be characterized by more
than one gift of grace. Paul himself had, beside his apostleship (2 Cor. 1:11), the
gift of celibacy (1 Cor. 7:7) which did not belong of necessity to the apostalate
(1 Cor. 9:5). He also had the gift of tongues (1 Cor. 14:18), and no doubt also
prophecy, teaching and administration. Capacity for spiritual service is determined
by one’s present charisma. It must not be overstepped through ambition (1 Cor.
12:11-27; Rom. 12:3-—5; cf. also 1 Pet. 4:10). On the other hand, Paul encouraged
desire (zé/oute) for the best gifts (1 Cor. 12:31), which can be attained not through
121
GRACE
achievements, but only through — prayer and obedience (— Faith, art. peithomai).
Rom. 11:29 designates as charismata the abiding privileges of Israel in salvation
history (cf. 9:4 f.).
(f) The vb. charizomai, like the noun, is used chiefly in connection with the deci-
sive, gracious gift of God. Rom. 8:32 speaks of the all-embracing gift of God in
the giving of his Son (cf. Jn. 3:16). The Spirit of God leads to the knowledge of what
God has bestowed (1 Cor. 2:12). Already in the old — covenant the free gift of
God is linked only with the — promise (epangelia, Gal. 3:18), and not with the
—> law. Readiness to suffer for Christ’s sake is, like faith, given to the church by
grace for Christ’s sake. It is expressed in the pass. in Phil. 1:29, to avoid use of the
divine — name. By the prayer of the household of Philemon the imprisoned Paul
hoped that he would be granted to that church as a guest (pass. as above, Phim. 22).
The second meaning of the vb. is to forgive (e.g. 2 Cor. 2:7, 10; cf. also Eph.
4:32; Col. 3:13; 2:13). Christians are to forgive each other, since God in Christ
(or the Lord) has forgiven them. In 2 Cor. 12:13 the vb. is used almost ironically to
mean excuse.
5. In the letter to the Ephesians charis occurs in only two places. It is used as
indicated above under 4(b) in an antithetical connection: ‘“‘dead through our
trespasses, made alive together with Christ, by grace [chariti] you have been saved’”’
(2:5): “by grace... through faith ... the gift of God” in opposition to “‘not your
own doing ... not because of works, lest any man should boast” (2:8 f.). In con-
trast to the earlier epistles, however, charis is connected in both places not with
dikaioo, justify (which does not occur in Eph. and Col.), but with s6ézd, save. The
emphasis is thus shifted from forensic justification to effective salvation (cf. R.
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1955, II 176), i.e. from pardon to
blessing (Eph. 1:6). Hence grace is connected with charito6d, to favour, bless. It
looks forward to exaltation (Eph. 1:6 f.; 2:7), though it is still related to ‘“‘redemp-
tion through his blood” (1:7; cf. 2:15; 4:9).
The cognitive aspect of grace which comes to men in the gospel is stressed in Col.
1:6. Grace and — truth belong together (Col. 1:5b; cf. Jn. 1:14). In Eph. 4:7
charis is used in the sense of charisma: “‘grace [charis] was given to each one of us
according to the measure of the gift [ddrea] of Christ.”
6. In the Pastorals 1 Tim. 1:12 ff. alludes autobiographically to Rom. 5:20b.
2 Tim. 1:9 takes up the connection of the purpose of God and the grace of Christ
(cf. Rom. 8:28 with 32), and gives with Tit. 2:11 a doxology of joy over the present
—> revelation (phaneroo or epiphaind) of grace. As in Eph., grace and salvation are
connected in Tit. 2:11 (sdtérios, saving); grace works to train us (paideuousa) away
from the world and towards eschatological hope. In Tit. 3:7 grace has a double
connection. On the one hand, it refers back to the Saviour Jesus Christ who pours
out the renewing Holy Spirit (cf. vv. 5 f.). On the other, it is related to justification
in the truly Pauline sense (dikaidthentes té ekeinou chariti, “justified by his grace’).
Christ’s grace brings about — likewise forensically - the appointment of heirs to
future life. Otherwise the Pastorals say nothing more about individual gifts of
grace, but only speak of grace for office (so charis, 2 Tim. 2:1). charisma is passed
on through the — laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6).
7. Of the remaining NT epistles 1 Pet. and Heb. come nearest to the Pauline
understanding of grace.
122
GRACE
(a) Like Eph. and Col., 1 Pet. does not specifically link grace and justification.
It speaks of the grace of God which is given through Christ (1:10, announced by
the prophets), the future revelation of which determines conduct and hope (1 :13),
and as stewards of which, in its manifold forms (4:10; 5:10), Christians should
live. Grace also permits the endurance of undeserved suffering to be understood as
approved by God (2:19 f.; cf. also 5:10). In the concluding message the standing of
the addressees in grace is confirmed as true (5:12).
(b) Heb. 2:9 understands grace as God’s care in salvation history which is
made effective in Jesus’ substitutionary death. Therefore the throne on which Christ
sits to rule is ‘‘a throne of grace.’’ Here forgiveness (= grace and compassion,
eleos; —-> Mercy) can be received from the one who can sympathize with the weak,
for he has identified himself with them as high — priest.
(c) The remaining texts in Heb. are concerned with the problem of cheap grace.
In this they may be compared with similar texts in the Catholic Epistles. To abuse
the spiritual gift by one’s way of life is worse than transgressing the Mosaic law
(10:29); grace once abandoned is not to be regained (12:15 ff.). But firmness of
heart remains, in spite of all exhortations, a gift of God and not the result of
keeping special regulations (13:9). The danger of falling away occurs in Jas. 4:6;
the Spirit’s offer of gifts outweighs his yearning demands (there follows a quotation
from Prov. 3:34; cf. 1 Pet. 5:5, above or 2). 2 Pet. 3:18 can even paradoxically
exhort us to grow in grace, in contrast to falling from our own firm position (cf.
Gal. 5:4 with 1 Cor. 12:31). Jude 4 warns against the misuse (metatithémi) of grace
to satisfy our passions, a danger which Paul had already repulsed in Rom. 6:1 (cf.
above 4 (b) (11), (i1i)).
8. In general the Apostolic Fathers hardened the development in the uncer-
standing of grace which can be seen in the later Pauline and Catholic Epistles.
Grace is institutionalized as grace for the community and for office. It is an aid for
the preservation of correct — teaching and of the ethics of the new law (— com-
mand, cf. R. Bultmann, op. cit., IT, 210 f., 216; T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of
Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, 1948). H.-H. Esser
—> Gift, — Mercy, — Spirit
(a). D. R. Ap-Thomas, “Some Aspects of the Root Ann in the Old Testament’’, JSS 2, 1957, 128-
48; F. Buchsel and J. Herrmann, hileds, TDNT III 300—23; G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of
Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, 1956; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1, 1952
(see index); D. Doughty, “The Priority of CHARIS’, NTS 19, 1972-3, 163-80; W. Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament, I, 1961, II, 1967; O. Eissfeldt, ““The Promise of Grace to David in
Isaiah 55:1—-5”’, in B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson, eds., Jsrael’s Prophetic Heritage, 1962, 196-
207; E. E. Ellis, “Spiritual Gifts in the Pauline Community’, NTS 20, 1973—4, 128-44; G. Farr,
“The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea”, ZAW 70, 1958, 98-107; N. Glueck, Hesed in the
Bible, 1967; E. Jauncey, The Doctrine of Grace, 1925; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel, 1966; W. F.
Lofthouse, “hén and hesed in the Old Testament’, ZAW 51, 1933, 29-35; H. D. McDonald,
‘““Grace”’, ZPEB II 799-804; J. Moffatt, Grace in the New Testament, 1931; R. S. Moxon, The
Doctrine of Sin, 1925; T. Y. Mullins, ““Greeting as a New Testament Form’’, JBL 87, 1968, 418—
26; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros, 19537; W. L. Reed, ‘Some Implications of hén for Old Testament
Religion’, JBL 73, 1954, 36-41; J. Schildenberger and G. Trenkler, “Grace’’, EBT I 337-44;
C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Grace, 1956; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the
Old Testament, 1944, 94-130; O. J. Thomas, ‘‘Irresistible Grace’’, Vox Evangelica 4, 1965, 55S—64;
T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, 1948; N. P. Williams, The Grace of
God, 1930.
123
GRACE/GREEK
(b). H. Braun, ‘‘Das Erbarmen Gottes tiber den Gerechten. Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos’’,
ZNW 43, 1950-51, 1 ff. (reprinted Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament, 1967", 8 ff.); and
‘*R6m. 7, 7-25 und das Selbstverstandnis des Qumran-Frommen’’, ZTK 56, 1959, | ff. (reprinted
op. cit., 100 ff.); U. Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt: Die paulinische Charismenlehre auf dem
Hintergrund der friihchristlichen Gemeindefunktionen, 1972; N. Glueck, Das Wort hesed im
alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch, BZAW 47, (1927) 19612; A. von Harnack, Sanftmut, Huld und
Demut, 1920; J. Haspecker, ‘“Gnade’’, LTK IV 977-80; J. Hempel, Gott und Mensch im Alten
Testament, 19362; M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma, BZNW 34, 1968; N. J. Hein, E. Wirth-
wein, G. Stahlin, E. Kahler, and W. Joest, ‘‘Gnade’’, RGG? II 1630 ff.; A. Jepsen, ‘““Gnade und
Barmherzigkeit im Alten Testament’, KuD 7, 1961, 261-71; J. K6berle, Svinde und Gnade im
religidsen Leben des Volkes Israel, 1905; O. Loew, Charis, 1908; E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottes-
knecht, 19632; H. Niederstrasser, Kerygma und Paideia. Zum Problem der erziehenden Gnade, \967;
O. Perels, ‘charisma im Neuen Testament’’, Fuldaer Hefte, 15, 1964, 39 ff.; J. Schreiner, Sion —
Jerusalem. Jahwes Konigssitz, 1963; H. J. Stoebe, “‘Die Bedeutung des Wortes hdsdd im Alten
Testament”, Vetus Testamentum 7, 1961, 261-71; H. J. Stoebe, W. Kasch and W. Pannenberg,
‘“Gnade’’, EKL | 1604 f.; G. P. Wetter, Charis, 1913; R. Winkler, ‘“Die Gnade im Neuen Testa-
ment”, ZSTh 10, 1933, 642-80; J. Wobbe, Der Charisgedanke bei Paulus, 1932; J. Ziegler, Die
Liebe Gottes bei den Propheten, Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 11, 3, 1930.
Greek
“Ed Any “EdAnv (Hellén), a Greek; ‘EAAd¢ (Hellas), Greece;
‘EdAnvixoc (Hellénikos), Greek; ‘EAAnvic (Hellénis), a
Greek woman; ‘EAAyviatnc (Hellénistés), a Hellenist; ‘“EAAnvioti (Helleénisti),
adv. Greek, in the Greek language.
cL Hellén means a Greek, as opposed to a Barbarian. In Homer the word denotes a
Thessalian tribe in the region of Pharsalos. In Herodotus it has become the
name for all Greeks. In between are the mythological genealogies which invented a
hero, Hellen, son of Deucalion (there is also a tradition that he is a son of Z us),
father of the Doric and Aeolian tribal heroes (as early as Hesiod).
The opposition between Greek and non-Greek was one of culture and not
religion. In the period after Alexander the Great, especially in the east, all who
had adopted Greek language, culture and way of life were counted as “Greeks’’,
even though they were of a different ethnic origin.
oT 1. Inthe LXX Hellén is sometimes used for Heb. yawan or y*wanim (actually the
Ionians; Dan. 8:21; 10:20). The experiences of the Jews under Antiochus IV
Epiphanes resulted in the word Greek taking on the additional shade of meaning
‘hostile to the Jews’’, as in 2 Macc. 4:36; 11:2; cf. Hellénikos in 4:10, 15; 6:9;
11:24; 13:2. It thus had the overtone of pagan (— People, art. ethnos). In this way
Hellén, originally a term of respect, was surrendered to the language of religious
contempt, because the Jew began from his belief in the one God, whereas the
Greek, in his contempt for the Jews, began from his philosophical culture.
Elsewhere in the LXX Hellas occurs in Isa. 66:19; Ezek. 27:13 (in both cases for
Heb. yadwadn; RSV Javan); 1 Macc. 1:1; 8:9; Dan. 11:2 v./.; Hellén for yawan in
Joel 3(4):6; Zech. 9:13; Dan. 11:2; for p*/istim (Philistines) in Isa. 9:12 (11); and
without Heb. equivalent in Joel 2:25 y./.; Dan. 7:6 v./.; 1 Macc. 1:10; 6:2 v.L;
8:18; 3 Macc. 3:8; 4 Macc. 18:20; Hellénikos in Jer. 26 (46) :16; 27 (S0):16 Gn both
cases the Heb. is different); 4 Macc. 8:8; Ezek. 4:8 v./.; Hellénis in 2 Macc. 6:8 v./.
124
GREEK
2. The world into which Christianity entered was characterized by the pervading
influence of Gk. culture, above all in the eastern part of the Roman empire. The
conquests of Alexander the Great and his policy of Hellenization, which was con-
tinued by his successors, caused the Gk. language and Gk. ways to become the
decisive cultural factor. Gk. cities arose everywhere, including Syria and Palestine,
bursting the old tribal groupings of the native peoples (which was their professed
intention). The upper strata in these cities spoke Gk. which became the language
of trade in the eastern part of the Roman empire and which was also widely
understood in Palestine. Just how far the process of Hellenization had gone can
be seen, for example, in the case of the Jews of Alexandria in Egypt, for whom a
Greek translation of the Bible, the LXX (Septuagint —> Glossary of Technical
Terms) had to be made in the third century B.c. For many of the people no longer
understood or spoke their ancestral Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue. The LXX was far
from being the only translation. It became the best known, because it was adopted
by the Greek-speaking Christians. This in turn led to new translations of the MT
into Gk. in opposition to the LXX. (See further S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and
Modern Study, 1968, which contains an extensive bibliography.)
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.c.-c. A.D. 50) was a Hellenistic philosopher and
writer who sought to restate Jewish belief in terms of Gk. philosophy. (For his
major writings which were written in Gk see the table of abbreviations.) He
developed an allegorical method of interpreting the OT which saw Gk. philosophical
ideas embodied in the history and institutions of Israel. In his system he accorded a
central place to the Logos (~~ Word) as the creative power which orders the world
and the intermediary which enables men to know God. (On Philo see H. A. Wolf-
son, “Philo Judaeus”’, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. P. Edwards, IV, 1967,
151-5; and Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and
Islam, I-II, 1962°.) Besides Philo there were numerous other Jewish authors who
used Gk. language and thought forms to proclaim and spread as missionaries
Jewish belief in God and the — law. Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37—c. 100) wrote his
celebrated history of the Jewish War (c. 77, probably originally in Aramaic) and
his Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) with a view to gaining Roman sympathies. (See
further H. Montefiore, Josephus and the New Testament, 1960.)
1 Macc. gives an account of the heavy inroads the Gk. spirit and the Gk.
attitude to life had made into the Jerusalem priesthood. There was even a risk of
losing fundamental religious tenets, and many were prepared to apostatize from
their fathers’ faith in God and turn from the— law. This and the violent
and clumsy attempts at Hellenization made by Antiochus Epiphanes (d. 163 B.c.)
provoked a reaction in the circles loyal to the law, which issued in the Maccabean
movement (cf. 2 Macc. 6:1 ff.). Relatively soon, however, the Maccabees them-
selves became Hellenized. Thus the ranks of pious Jews, loyal to the law, were
penetrated by Gk. thought, teaching and myths (including the idea of tradition,
the immortality of the soul, and myths of the beyond). Even the Rabbis understood
Gk. and were acquainted with Homer. The very numerous Gk. loan-words in the
Talmud and Midrash are evidence of the cultural supremacy of Greece, even in the
realm of Judaism. A reaction which, however, could not make much headway,
showed itself at the beginning of the second cent. A.D., when the learning of Gk.
was prohibited. The prohibition was soon afterwards watered down to one against
125
GREEK
the learning of Gk. “‘wisdom”’ (Sot. 9:14; cf. Sot. 49b). The Jewish Karaite sect in
the ninth cent. A.D. also arose in opposition to Gk. philosophy. In calling Jews
back to a study of the Scriptures alone, it was opposing Gk. influences in the
Talmud and other bodies of writing.
NT In the NT Hellas, Greece, occurs only in Acts 20:2. Of the 26 occurrences of
Hellén in the NT, 10 are in Acts and 13 in Paul’s letters; it does not appear in
the Synoptics. Hellénis is found in Acts 17:12 and Mk. 7:26. It is used to describe
the Syrophoenician woman, but it is not absolutely clear what is meant by the
double description. It is certain that the woman who probably spoke Gk. was a
pagan whom Jesus helped on account of her faith. ([Ed.] W. L. Lane suggests that,
‘““She was a member of the Hellenized citizen class in the Phoenician republic of
Tyre, a Gentile by birth and culture. She is designated a Syrophoenician because
Phoenica belonged administratively to the province of Syria and was distinguished
from Libophoenicia with its centre at Carthage in North Africa” [The Gospel of
Mark, NLC 1974, 260; cf. Did. Sic. 19,93; Polyb. 3, 33; Strabo, 17, 3, 9].) Hellénikos,
Greek (adj.), occurs only in Rev. 9:11. The name of the angel of the abyss is en té
Helléniké (supply glossé), i.e. “‘in the Greek language’”’, Apollyon (— Destroy, art.
apoleia NT 4). Hellénisti means in Greek; the title on Jesus’ cross was written in
Hebrew, Latin and Greek (Jn. 19:20). The officer who rescued Paul from the mob
was surprised to discover that Paul understood Gk. (Acts 21:37).
Hellénistés (a new formation from the verb Hellénizein) means a man who speaks
Gk. and lives as a Gk. (Acts 6:1; 9:29). In Acts 9:29 the word refers to Jews who
sought to kill Paul, and in Acts 6:1 it refers to Gk.-speaking Jewish Christians
who were strictly orthodox Jewish Christians and not Greeks at all. Paul’s later
struggle for a gospel free from the law would otherwise be incomprehensible (cf.
also Acts 10 f. and 15), and uncircumcised pagans were certainly not accepted into
synagogue congregations.
1. In Jn. 7:35 the Jews suggest that Jesus intends going to the Gk. dispersion,
to the Jews who lived among the Greeks, and from this base to teach them. In
Jn. 12:20 ff. Hellénes refers to Gk.-speaking proselytes (—> Conversion, art.
prosélytos) and not pagans, for they wanted to worship in the — Temple. They
wanted to see Jesus. This gives rise to a prospect of the mission to the Gentiles for
which Jesus’ death is a prerequisite. It was Gk.-speaking Jewish Christians who
first preached the gospel to the Greeks (Acts 11:20). This was done above all by
Paul and his companions (Acts 17:4; 19:10; etc.). Whenever the Jews refused the
message, Paul turned to the Greeks. Jews and Greeks lived everywhere side by
side, with the result that mixed marriages took place. From one of these came
Timothy (Acts 16:1). Paul was accused of taking Greeks into the Temple and thus of
defiling it (Acts 21:28). Sometimes the word Hellén can also mean a proselyte
(Acts 14:1; 17:4; — Conversion, art. prosélytos).
2. The expression “‘Jews and Greeks” which occurs especially in Paul’s writings
can stand for the whole of humanity (1 Cor. 1:24; 10:32; 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col.
3:11). The Jews are mentioned first as an expression of their privileged place in
salvation history. But God is just as much God of the Greeks as of the Jews (Rom.
10:12). Paul was set aside in a special way to exercise his apostolic ministry among
the Greeks (Rom. 1:14; Gal. 1:16; 2:9; cf. Eph. 3:6 f.; 1 Tim. 2:7). Not all pagans
126
GREEK
were Hellénes, for alongside them Paul refers also to barbarians and Scythians
(Rom. 1:14; Col. 3:11). The Hellénes were characterized by their seeking —
wisdom (art. sophia), which made the cross of Christ seem folly to them (1 Cor.
1:22 f.).
The picture painted by Paulin Rom. | :18—32 of the Greeks (v. 16) or the heathen
(— People, art. ethnos) is a gloomy one. Nevertheless, God directs his message
as much to them as to the Jews (Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 3:9). If the Greek does good and
fulfils what the law requires, he will receive honour like the Jew (Rom. 2:9 f.,
14-16; cf. Jer. 31:33 f.). (On revelation to the Gentiles — God, art. theos, NT 4 (b),
9.) As the Greeks were all pagans from the beginning, the concepts pagan and
Greek are interchangeable when contrasted with that of the Jew (cf. Rom. 3:29 f.
with 1 Cor. 1:22—24). The Greeks figure here as the foremost representatives of the
pagan world. The church in Corinth was given the warning not to offend the Jews,
the Greeks or the church of God (1 Cor. 10:32). The non-Christian population of
Corinth fell into the two first-mentioned groups, alongside which the church now
stood as a new people (— People, art. /aos).
In this new people of God, the — church, differences of origin are removed.
God who in reality had always been the God of the Greeks (Rom. 10:12), though
they did not recognize him, has now become consciously and in fact their God, in
that they have believed in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit they have been
—> baptized into one — body (1 Cor. 12:13).
Whoever has been baptized into Jesus Christ is God’s child and has put on
Christ, whether he is Jew or Greek, and so the man who was born a Hellén now
belongs to the offspring of — Abraham (Gal. 3:26—29). Being a Greek or a Jew
belongs to the old man, which has to be put away along with all its evil character-
istics (Col. 3:11; cf. v. 5-10, 12 f.). H. Bietenhard
—> Israel, > People
(a). A. W. Argyle, ““The Greek of Luke and Acts’’, NTS 20, 1973-74, 441-45; R. Bultmann,
Primitive Christianity in its contemporary Setting, 1956; G. Dix, Jew and Greek: A Study in the
Primitive Church, 1953; C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 1935; E. von Dobschiitz, ‘‘Hellen-
ism”’, DAC I 547 ff.; F. C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, 1962; R. H. Gundry
“The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine’, JBL 83, 1964, 404 f.; W. K. C. Guthrie, The
Greeks and their Gods, 19547; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971; N. G. L. Hammond,
History of Greece, 19677; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, III, 1974; G. H. C. MacGregor and
A. C. Purdy, Jew and Greek: Tutors unto Christ. The Jewish and Hellenistic Background of the
New Testament, 19597; I. H. Marshall, ‘‘Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical
Comments”, N7S 19, 1972-73, 271-287; C. F. D. Moule, ““Once More, Who were the Hellenists ?”’
ExpT 70, 1958-59, 100 ff.; S. Safrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik, eds., The Jewish
People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious
Life and Institutions, I, 1974; Schtirer (see index); J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek ? How Much
Greek Would the First Jewish Christians have Known? Supplements to NovT 19, 1968; J. B. Skemp,
The Greeks and the Gospel, 1964; N. Turner, ““The Literary Character of New Testament Greek’’,
NTS 20, 1973-74, 107-14; S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke—Acts, 1973;
H. Windisch, Hellén etc., TDNT II 504-16.
(b). A. Bauer, Vom Griechentum zum Christentum, 1910; J. Jiithner, Hellenen und Barbaren, 1923;
J. Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus,? I, 1917, II, 1926; W. Nestle, Griechische Religiositat, ITI,
1934, 5S ff.; F. R. Walton, “‘Griechische Religion”, RGG*, III 1860 ff.; U. von Wilamowitz-
Moellendorff, Der Glaube der Hellenen, I—-II, (1931-32) 1955?.
127
GROW
Grow
auxano and pleonazoé both denote increase in quantity or quality. auxano is a
word to do with plant-life and originally denoted the natural process of growth
into fruition. It is only used in a positive sense in the NT. pleonazo is a quanti-
tative word which originally meant to overflow, and thus to exceed. In figurative
NT usage the differences are still clearly discernible.
acai avéw@ and abéavw (auxd, auxand), grow, cause to grow,
| increase; aUénaic (auxésis), growth, increase;
bmepavcaven (hyperauxand), grow abundantly; npoxonn (prokopé), progress,
advancement, furtherance; zpoxomtw (prokopto), go forward, advance, make
progress, prosper.
CL The vb. is attested since Pindar, both in the short form auxo and in the strength-
ened form auxand, and means to cause to grow, to cause to increase. Trans.
it is used equally for natural growth, such as that of fruits, and for increase and
advancement in respect and power. The mid.-pass. can also mean to be exalted,
glorified, or praised. The noun auxésis is used from the Pre-Socratics and Hdt.
onwards, and means growth; in the phrase auxésin poieisthai, to cause to grow, to
grow. hyperauxano is used from Andocides onwards, meaning to grow abundantly,
plentifully, or extravagantly. The Lat. augere (increase, grow), augustus (august,
venerable) are cognates. Probably deriving from the same root is Lat. auxilium
(help).
Our word is particularly used of natural growth. On the same lines is the use of
the word for the waxing of the moon and and the sun (Kalendarium of Antiochus
[c. A.D. 200] on 25 Dec.; cf. E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes, 1924, 99 ff.; Arndt,
121). No specific philosophical or religious significance stand out in the Gk. world,
by contrast with prokopto and prokopé which both in Stoic philosophy and in
Philo denote ethical advance.
oT In the LXX auxano stands for pardh 11 times in the gal, meaning to be fruitful,
plentiful; 8 times in the act. hiph. meaning to make fruitful or plentiful. God is
mainly the subject of the process of causing growth (thus Gen. 17:20 of Ishmael; and
Gen. 35:11 in the blessing to Jacob who is to become a great nation; cf. Jer. 3:16;
23:3). It is frequently linked with pléthyno, to fill, to multiply, and occurs in the
original creation ordinance to humanity and subsequently renewed to the Jewish
people to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:22, 28; 9:1, 7to Noah; 17:6 to Abraham).
In the parabolic promise of Isa. 61:11 the process of growth is not viewed as
something automatic and inevitable. The point of the comparison is the difference
between the first state and the last. The surprising thing is that the beginning and
and end stages are two completely different states. Where previously there was
nothing, God’s creative will becomes effective: he creates righteousness and praise.
Sir. 43:8 speaks of the waxing of the new moon. Here, too, God is the originator
of the growth.
NT 1. In the NT auxand is found 22 times, including 4 times in | and 2 Cor., twice
in Eph., 3 times in Col., and 7 times in Lk. The noun auxésis occurs only in
Eph. 4:16 and Col. 2:19 in connection with the vb.
128
GROW
2. Natural growth is alluded to directly only in Lk. 1:80 and 2:40, where the
child Jesus is said to grow in physique (—> Age) and in the — Spirit.
3. (a) auxano features in Mk.’s version of the parable of the sower (Mk. 4:8), the
parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:32; Lk. 13:19), and the saying about the
lilies of the field (Matt. 6:28). According to the synoptic account of Jesus’ preaching,
the picture of plant-like growth illustrates the coming of the kingdom through the
word in the face of all opposition. God is the one who causes to grow that which
he himself sows through Jesus, or plants through his servants (cf. also 1 Cor. 3:6 f.;
2 Cor. 9:10).
(b) In the teaching of Paul auxano is significantly lacking in Rom. and Gal. It is
not part of the doctrine of justification, but belongs to paraenesis. Only God can
cause the church to grow (1 Cor. 3:5-11). Only by remembering its origin which is
given in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11) can the church truly grow (— Firm, art. theme-
lios NT 1). The thought here is not solely of numerical increase, but also of maturity
and the consolidation of the community in Christ from which good works naturally
grow (2 Cor. 9:6-11).
(c) Eph. 2:20 ff. does not contradict the picture of 1 Cor. 3:11, where the apostles
and prophets are said to be the foundation on which the building grows (~ House,
art. oikos, oikodomeo). For Jesus Christ is described as “‘the chief cornerstone”’
(cf. Pss. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10 f.; Lk. 20:7; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7;
—> Rock, Stone, Cornerstone, art. gdnia). Moreover, the church was by this time
uniquely dependent on the witness of the apostles and prophets for the preaching
of Christ. Therefore the growth of the community in Eph. derives ultimately from
Jesus Christ who at the same time holds the building together (cf. 2:20 f. with
1:5ff., 10; 2:10; 4:15f.). Growth does not mean that the gospel calls men into some
kind of extra-historical existence. Because Christians are placed in the fellowship
of the people of God, they are thereby placed in a historical process which is de-
termined by the promise of the world-wide rule of Christ. The existence together
of Jews and Gentiles as children in the presence of the Lord of the church opens up
a new dimension for the church as it grows into a single structure. ““The growth of
the church in personal holiness in Christ is a continuous process. The present tense
of auxein makes this clear. auxein is the mode of the church’s being. The church
exists as it grows. It is only ever holy in so far as being holy, it becomes holy, and
both ‘in Christ’? CH. Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser, 1965°, 144).
(d) The conception of building corresponds with that of the growing — body
(Eph. 4:15 f.; Col. 2:19). Some scholars think that both ideas are taken from
enosticism. Eph. 4:15 f. shows the way that this growth is to take place. When
truth is spoken in love, and love takes effect, the church grows into Christ, the
one —> head. According to Col. 1:6, all growth springs from the gospel. As men
are moved by the gospel, they grow in knowledge of God (Col. 1:10 f.) and in
grace (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18).
4. The NT can also speak of growth in — faith (2 Cor. 10:15; 2 Thess. 1:3;
2 Pet. 3:18 y./.). Faith is conditioned by one’s personal circumstances as well as by
God’s saving acts in history. It is brought about and renewed by the — Word, the
living Christ himself. But it undergoes transformation in the life of the Christian.
The believer always has his own particular history in relation to his Lord. He lives
between the “‘no longer’ and the “not yet” (cf. Phil. 3:12-15; R. Bultmann,
129
GROW
Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 322). The decision which leads to — bap-
tism is admittedly taken only once, but faith needs to be constantly renewed (cf.
Rom. 14:1; 1 Thess. 3:10). Faith grows out of the obedience of the believer in the
fellowship of the Christian community (2 Thess. 1:3; cf. Phil. 1:25 f.). It leads to a
more effective — witness in the world (2 Cor. 10:15 f.). Quantitative and qualita-
tive growth are closely connected. The final goal of growth in faith is the day of
Christ (Phil. 1:6). Growing faith always works outwards, bringing — fruit and
bearing witness (2 Thess. 1:3; 2 Cor. 10:15). A summons to growth in faith can
even be given in the imperative (2 Pet. 3:18 v./.).
5. In Acts growth is an important word for the missionary activity of the com-
munity (6:7; 12:24; 19:20). Acts 7:17 (“the people grew and multiplied in Egypt’’)
provides a clear reminder of OT salvation history. The promise to Israel (Exod.
1:7) is eschatologically applied to the Christian community (Acts 12:24; cf. also
Did. 16:3; 1 Clem. 33:6).
6. The derivation of the expression “‘He must increase, but I must decrease”’ is
disputed. R. Bultmann traces it back to an astral picture (The Gospel of John, 1971,
174). G. Delling rejects this in favour of the ancient linguistic usage of increasing or
decreasing in esteem or importance (JT DNT VIII 519). The emphasis surely lies
here on increase in influence and importance. The Baptist points to his Lord and
withdraws his own light so that the One to whom he points may be seen.
auxano is distinguished from the noun prokopé (Phil. 1:25; 1 Tim. 4:15) and the
vb. prokopté (Lk. 2:52; Rom. 13:12; Gal. 1:14; 2 Tim. 2:16; 3:9, 13) meaning
advance, progress, in that in the NT it occurs exclusively in a positive sense. It has
thus more positive theological associations. For not every ‘‘advance”’ is also
“growth”. W. Giinther
mheovilo | mtAeovacw (pleonazo), to be or become more or great, to
| Aeowlben grow, to increase ; Ume pm Acovaca (hyperpleonazo), to be
present in great abundance.
CL pleonazo, used from Thuc. onwards, is formed from pleon (more), the com-
parative of polys (much, many), with the ending -azein, and means to be or
become (too) much or many. The augmented form hyperpleonazé, to be present
in excessive quantity, is rare. The developed basic meaning of pleonazo appears
intrans. as to be or become (too) great, to exceed the correct amount, and thus fig.
to be overweening or to become presumptuous. It also means to overflow (of a sea
or a river), to augment, to become (too) numerous (e.g. the Jews in Rome), to be
present in plentiful abundance (e.g. joys), to be rich in something, to have more than
is necessary, to abound in, and, as a commercial term, to have a balance (of cash).
Trans. pleonazé occurs as to make rich, to increase or multiply, to cause to grow.
In ethical contexts (as in Thuc., Dem., Aristot., Stoics) pleonazod denotes in a
censorious way that which violates the ideal of moderation, reason and natural
wholeness.
oT The LXX has pleonaz6 28 times; of these, 18 render Heb. equivalents, generally
‘adap to be surplus, and rabah to be or become many: e.g. of good (Exod. 16:18,
130
GROW
23), people (1 Chr. 4:27; 5:23; Jer. 30:19), money etc. (2 Chr. 24:11; 31:5; Sir.
35:1), sins (Sir. 23:3).
NT In the NT pleonazo occurs 9 times (intrans. 7 times in Paul and 2 Pet. 1:8;
trans. in 2 Thess. 1:3); hyperpleonaz6 only in 1 Tim. 1:4. It always expresses
in the NT a process of growing, multiplying or increasing. It stands in contrast with
perisseuo which expresses in an eschatological sense the element of the abundance
which far exceeds all measurement and of the fullness which overflows all previously
fixed boundaries (— Fullness, art. perisseud). pleonazo renders more the idea of
development, the growth process of something: “that grace may abound” (Rom.
6:1); “your faith is growing” (2 Thess. 1:3); “‘if these things [godliness, love etc. ]
abound” (2 Pet. 1:8). perisseud exceeds pleonaz6 in expressing superabundant >
quantity. This emerges in a number of passages, in which both terms stand in the
same context.
1. In Rom. 5:20 Paul is formulating the relationship between — law and —
grace. Through the — law (art. nomos) sin increases (pleonaz6) to its full extent
and exposes the hopelessness of humanity in the face of death. But grace has
abounded all the more (Aypereperisseusen) in the new age. The more hopelessly
man entangles himself in increasing sin, the greater is God’s liberating act in giving
pardon. This view of the relationship between sin and grace obviously led to a
misunderstanding in Judaism, which Paul goes into in Rom. 6:1 ff.
It is interesting that Paul here (6:1) now uses pleonaz6 with reference to grace
and not, as one might have supposed, perisseuo. In this context Paul is concerned
with the process of grace becoming greater. It cannot be stimulated by a conscious
persistence in sin.
2. 2 Cor. 4:15 also links charis, grace, with pleonazo. As grace extends ( pleonasa-
sa) to more and more people, thanksgiving overflows (perisseusé) to the glory of
God. ‘‘Grace makes its way on earth” (G. Klein).
3. In Phil. 4:17 Paul links pleonaz6 with various business terms (eis logon doseds
kai lempseos, in settlement of giving and receiving [of a mutual account], v. 15; cf.
Arndt, 479; eis logon hymon, credited to your account, v. 17; cf. Arndt, 479).
pleonazé is also to be understood from this context. With reference to the contribu-
tion of the Philippians Paul says: “It is not the gift that I value; what is valuable to
me is the interest that is mounting up [pleonazonta] in your account’’ (JB). The use
of perisseud in v. 18 (‘I have more than enough’’) shows again the particular thrust
of pleonazo.
4. Paul prayed that the Lord might grant the Thessalonians to grow (pleonasai)
and overflow (perisseusai) in — love for one another (1 Thess. 3:12). pleonazein
is thus intensified by perisseuein.
5. pleonazo occurs in the sense of perisseud in the OT quotation (Exod. 16:18)
in 2 Cor. 8:15: ““He who gathered much had nothing over’’, i.e. had no more than
was necessary. W. Bauder, D. Miiller
—> Fruit, — Seed
G. Delling, pleonazo etc., TDNT V1 263-74; G. Stahlin, prokopé etc., TDNT VI 703-19; and ‘‘Fort-
schritt und Wachstum. Zur Herkunft und Wandlung neutestamentlicher Ausdrucksformen’’,
Festgabe fiir J. Lortz, Wl, 1957, 13-25.
131
GUARD
Guard, Keep, Watch
People only guard things which they think are valuable, whether they are
people, prisoners or things. To guard something is to make oneself dependent on
what one guards, because it can only be done by sacrificing time and freedom to it.
téreo and phylasso are verbs which express this watching over and guarding. Both
were originally used in the former sense, but were then applied figuratively to
preserving the law, commandments and traditions. Anyone who keeps such. ordi-
nances thereby allows his life and actions to be determined by them.
| ; TH pE@ (téred), preserve, keep; ty pnaic (térésis), observ-
TY PEW | : iiss
ance; 7apatn pém (paratéred), watch (closely), observe;
A paty pyaic (parateérésis), observation.
CL téred means: (a) have in view, perceive, observe; then (act.) wait for (the right
time or opportunity), lie in wait for (a person); (mid) be on the watch, be on
one’s guard; (b) guard, watch over, preserve (things, persons, and also ethical
values, e.g. loyalty, faith, chastity); (c) pay attention to, obey, comply with (teach-
ings, customs, legal demands). The derivative noun térésis (Thuc. onwards) conse-
quently means: (a) guard, custody, detention; (b) prison; (c) (fig.) observance,
obeying, fulfilling (of commands, laws). The compound paratéred (Dem. onwards)
is identical with the simple vb. in act. and mid., but the noun paratérésis (first in
Polyb.) is used only for the observance of legal demands.
oT 1. In the LXX — phylassé is much commoner than téred, which is found only
38 times — in addition variations in Symm., Theod., Alexandrinus add 6 more
cases — of which a good two-thirds come in the translation of the Heb. canonical
books, and the remainder in the Apoc. A majority of the passages are in the Wisdom
Literature (Prov. has 15), then come the historical books. There is only one example
in the prophetic books (Jer. 20:10), interestingly enough in the lit. sense of lying
in wait for a person. Like phylasso, though not in the same proportion, téred
mainly represents the Heb. Samar, the nuances of which (according to Koehler-
Baumgartner, 993 f.) are very much the same as those in the secular meanings of
phylass6 and téred, and also nasar. The predominant meaning of téred in the LXX
is that of religious observance with either God’s commands (1 Sam. 15:11; Prov.
19:16) or those of Wisdom (Prov. 3:1) as the object. There is an interesting parallel-
ism between phylasso and téred in Prov. 13:3; 16:17; 19:16: he who guards his
mouth, his way, keeps the commandment (in each case phylasso) preserves or keeps
his life (tered). For Dan. 9:4, where God’s covenant loyalty — téred with diathéké —
is made dependent on the obedience of the community — phylass6. téred is also
used a few times of the guarding of persons or things, and in Gen. 3:15 of the
woman’s seed and the serpent.
2. terésis is found in the LXX only in apocryphal books. In Wis. 6:18, Sir. 32:23
it is used for the result of the love of wisdom or of the commandments. Otherwise
it is used for the guarding of persons, or of the city. paratéreé is found only 6 times
in the LXX, generally with the force of waylay, lie in wait for. paratérésis is found
only as a variant reading in Exod. 12:42.
132
GUARD
NT 1. There are only 31 instances of phylasso in the NT as against the more than
400 in the LXX, but téred is found 70 times to the LXX’s 38. Thus the NT
prefers the word less used in the LXX. This is particularly noticeable in John
(Gospel, 18 times; Letters, 7 times) and Acts (11 times). It cannot be said with
certainty whether this is due to this word’s being particularly suited to convey a
spiritual meaning.
In the NT it means: (a) guard, keep watch (e.g. Acts 16:23; Matt. 27:36); (b)
keep (e.g. Jn. 2:10; 12:7; 2 Pet. 2:4); (c) keep blameless, uninjured (e.g. | Thess.
5:23; 1 Cor. 7:37; 1 Tim. 5:22); (d) protect (e.g. Jn. 17:15); (e) hold fast (e.g.
Rev. 16:15; Eph. 4:3); (f) hold, follow, e.g. the law (Jas. 2:10), the — sabbath
(Jn. 9:16), traditions (Mk. 7:9), the commands of Jesus (Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10, etc.).
2. Of the 70 occurrences in the NT barely a half are found with the last-men-
tioned meaning, which is also approximately the case with phylasso. It is note-
worthy, however, that in contrast to phylasso, with few exceptions (e.g. Mk. 7:9;
Jn. 9:16; Jas. 2:10), téreo does not have the force of keeping Jewish or Judaizing
(Acts 15:5) tradition rejected by the Christians (cf. the polemical use of paratéred
in Gal. 4:10 applied to Jewish customs), but that of keeping a new Christian tradi-
tion.
This is set out clearly in Christ’s final command (Matt. 28:20), where the exalted
Christ commands the church to keep the new righteousness which he had
taught, e.g. in the Sermon on the Mount. It is possible that in Matt. 19:17, in his
conversation with the rich young man and in contrast to his legalistic righteousness
(cf. phylasso), and in Matt. 23:3, where he contrasts the Pharisees’ teaching and
practice, Jesus in demanding the keeping of the commandments meant the better
righteousness (Matt. 5:20) and hence the true understanding of the Mosaic Law.
If that is so, Matthew consciously uses téred in contrast to its apparent synonym
phylasso. The same usage is found in | Cor. 7:19, where the keeping (térésis) of the
commandments of God is to be understood in terms of Christian ethics. In the
Pastorals (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:7), however, téred is used like — phylasso of the
keeping of the tradition.
In Rev., linked with Jogos (word), entolé (command), and pistis (faith), tered has
the force of keeping fast a confession, both in facing false doctrine and in meeting a
martyr’s death (2:26; 3:3, 8, 10; 12:17; 14:12). All the Johannine passages, whether
they are concerned with the keeping of the word or commandments by the church
or the individual (e.g. Jn. 8:51; 15:10; 1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22), or with God’s or Christ’s
keeping of the church (Jn. 17:11, 15; 1 Jn. 5:18), have to do with remaining in the
church or in Christ. There is a special shade of meaning in Jn. 14:15, 21, 23 f. Here
in the setting of Christ’s farewell discourse love to him, the revealer, is described
as personal and immediate relationship to him. Bultmann points out that “keeping
his commandments” or his “‘word”’ has here an anti-mystical point (The Gospel of
John, 1971, 613 f.).
The reference of paratérésis (observation) in Lk. 17:20 cannot be established
with certainty. Probably the word is used of the observation of apocalyptic signs.
There is, however, just the possibility that the keeping of the law is intended.
paratéreo, apart from Gal. 4:10 (see above), is found only with the meaning of
lie in wait for (Mk. 3:2 par. Lk. 6:7; 14:1; 20:20; Acts 9:24- Eng. versions
“*watch’’). H.-G. Schiitz
133
GUARD
dvidoow (phylasso), guard, preserve, keep; dvAaky
(phylaké), watch, guard, prison; dpovpéw (phroureod),
guard, keep in custody, preserve.
| dvAdaow |
cL 1. The etymology of phylasso has not been established. In the act. it means,
intrans.: (a) be sleepless, watch, keep guard, e.g. nykta phylasso (Homer), to
watch all night; (b) serve as garrison (for or in a city). This leads to the trans. use:
guard, provide with a guard, hold in prison; (c) guard, preserve — originally of
things, property, persons and then fig. of love, loyalty, respect; (d) watch over,
store (in safe keeping); (f) hold in honour (e.g. friendship), obey (an order, oath,
law), attend to. In the mid. it has the same force as act. (a), (b), and also means guard
for oneself, store, be careful, be on one’s guard. In the LXX it has also the force of
act. (f).
2. The vb. phroured, compounded of pro and hora-, to pay attention to something
(—> See, art. horad), when used trans. has the same meaning as phylasso.
oT In the LXX phroureo is found only 4 times, all in apocryphal books, and thus
it does not represent any original Heb. word in the text. phylasso, on the other
hand, is found well over 400 times, and in a number of the Pseudepigrapha, viz.
Eth. Enoch, Aristeas, Test. XII, Sib., and in Philo. No distinction in meaning is
made between act. and mid. 378 times it translates Samar, guard, watch, keep; 10
times nasar, follow, obey; and in isolated cases 9 other Heb. verbs. While phylassé
is found in almost all the books of the LXX, it is found most commonly in the
Pent., apart from Gen., and especially in Deut., in 1-2 Ki. (LXX 3 Ki., 4 Ki.), 1-2
Chr., Pss., Prov., Wis., Sir., Ezek. Its commonest use is for the obedience to and
keeping of the law, cultic regulations, the word of God in general or of the cove-
nant. The subject of the vb. can be the whole people of Israel, groups within it,
or individuals (Exod. 12:24; Lev. 18:4; Deut. 5:1; Ps. 78[77]:10; Prov. 19:16;
Ezek. 11:20). It is easy to trace the development of the concept in the OT from the
original thought of fulfilling the covenant obligations (positive or negative) to the
inter-testamental idea of keeping the law as the way to salvation (cf. Dan. 9:4 and
various passages in 1 and 4 Macc., e.g. 1 Macc. 2:53; 8:26, 28; 4 Macc. 5:29;
6:18; 15:10; 18:7). Hence at the end of this development of meaning the covenant
loyalty of God is regarded as dependent on the keeping of the law by the community.
({Tr.] This is undoubtedly the general impression created, but does not do justice
to all the evidence. Much in the Jewish prayer-book, or a Midrashic saying like,
“It was not for their works that the Israelites were delivered from Egypt, or for
their father’s works, and not by their works that the Red Sea was cloven in sunder,
but to make God a name” [C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, eds., A Rabbinic
Anthology, 1938, 92] shows that apparently positive remarks about Israel’s keeping
of the law have to be interpreted in a wider framework.) The use of Samar in the
Qumran literature, above all in the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus
Document, shows this tendency predominantly (1 QS 5:2, 9; 8:3; CD 2:18, 21;
3:2 f.; 6:14, 18; 10:14, 16; 16:7; 19:1 f., 9. 28; 20:17, 22; on legalism at Qumran
see M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 1961, 118-24, 169 ff.). The other
meanings of phy/ass6 enumerated under ct are also found in the LXX but much
more rarely. To be stressed is the usage found especially in the Pss., of God’s
protecting actions for his people or the pious (cf. Ps. 12:7[8]; 17:8; 145:20).
134
GUARD
NT 1. In the NT phylassé means: (a) keep watch (Lk. 2:8); (b) guard (e.g. Acts
12:4; 23:35); (c) protect, guard (of God or Christ: Jn. 17:12; 2 Thess. 3:3;
2 Tim. 1:12; 2 Pet. 2:5; Jude 24; or of men: Jn. 12:25); in the mid. or with a reflex.
pron., beware of, abstain from (Lk. 12:15; Acts 21:25; 2 Tim. 4:15; 2 Pet. 3:17;
| Jn. 5:21); (d) observe, hold, e.g. the law (Gal. 6:13), the commandments (Mk.
10:20 par. Matt. 19:20, Lk. 18:21), the words of Jesus (Jn. 12:47), the decisions
of the apostles (Acts 16:4).
2. Obey, hold: in each of the first two Gospels the word is used once only: Matt.
19:20; Mk. 10:20. In each case it has the contemporary religious sense of keeping
the law (see above oT). Although both here and in Lk. 18:21 there is no direct
criticism of Jewish observance of the law, the radical demand made by Jesus on
the rich young ruler is indirectly a complete rejection of it.
Paul uses it only in the Jewish sense, but the context can give it a particular
nuance. In Rom. 2:26 it is anti-legal; in Gal. 6:13 anti-Judaistic.
The same connotation of keeping the law is found in Acts 7:53, where Stephen
in his defence denies that the Jews had ever kept the law, i.e. their conception of
how the law should be kept was rejected from the standpoint of primitive Chris-
tianity. Acts 21:24 approves of the Jewish observance, because the Jewish Christian
also did so. Luke shows Paul in agreement with the Jewish Christian standpoint.
The Jewish legacy to primitive Christianity is found in a much more important
form when phylasso is used with tradition, the handing on of the Christian message
and teaching. In Acts 16:4 Paul and Timothy delivered to the churches of Asia
Minor the dogmata, decisions (~ Command), of the original apostles, who
represented the one, true church. There is a similar concept in the Pastorals (1
Tim. 5:21; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14). The future of the church depends on the disciples
of the apostles guarding, working out, making real the inheritance from the apostles.
Note 2 Tim. 1:12 where the Lord himself guards it. While Protestants are apt to see
here elements leading to Catholicism, it is highly probable that in the position
portrayed by Luke and the Pastorals this step of stressing tradition was necessary and
unavoidable. phylasso is found frequently in Luke (2:8; 11:21; 12:15) and Acts (12:
4; 23:35) inits lit. meaning. It also has alit. sense in 2 Tim. 4:15; Jn. 12:25; 2 Pet. 2:5.
In Jn. 12:47 the expression “[not to] keep my words” means quite simply not to
believe in me, Jesus, as the Revealer sent by God. Belief and keeping Jesus’ words
are defined in terms of each other.)
3. Protect, guard: 2 Thess. 3:3 deals with preserving the church’s faith: God is
the One who guards the church from the evil one (NEB). The basic thought of the
passage is eschatological; the concrete background is the threat of a rising false
doctrine within the church. The position is similar in Jude 24 and Phil. 4:7 (where
phroured, guard [cf. 2 Cor. 11:32], is used as also in | Pet. 1:5). The church is
commended to the protection of God in its fight against false doctrine. In Jn. 15:21
the church is exhorted to be itself on guard against idols. Jn. 17:11 f. is concerned
with the maintenance of the unity of the church and its exclusive relationship to
Christ. Here pAylass6 and téreo are used together as synonyms; God, or Christ, 1s
the subject. phroured is used in Gal. 3:23 in a special sense for the role of the law in
the history of salvation: ““Now before faith came, we were confined [ephrourou-
metha] under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed”’ (RSV).
H.-G. Schiitz
135
GUARD
4. The noun phylaké means: (a) guard or watch (of the shepherds over their
flocks in Lk. 2:8); (b) the place of guarding or prison; Matt. 5:25 par. Lk. 12:58
as a picture of the place of judgment; Matt. 14:3, 10 par. Mk. 6:17, 27, Lk. 3:20
of John the Baptist; Matt. 18:30 again as a picture of judgment in the parable of
the unforgiving servant; Lk. 21:12 in the context of warnings about what will
happen to Christ’s disciples; Lk. 22:33 of Peter’s professed willingness to go to
prison; Lk. 23:19, 25 of Barabbas; Acts 5:19, 22, 25 of the imprisonment of Peter;
Acts 8:3; 22:4; 26:10 of Saul’s (Paul’s) erstwhile persecution of believers; Acts
12:4 f., 10 of Peter’s escape from prison; Acts 16:23, 24, 27, 37, 40 in the accounts
of Paul and Silas at Philippi; 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23 in Paul’s account of how Christ
has enabled him to triumph over weakness and calamity; Heb. 11:36 in the list of
trials that have been overcome by faith; 1 Pet. 3:19 of “the spirits in prison”’
identified by B. Reicke as the underworld or place of punishment in — hell (cf.
The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 1946, 116 f.), also Death, art.
thanatos NT 2 (b); Rev. 2:10 of the fate of some of the believers at Smyrna who are
exhorted to remain faithful unto death so that they may receive the crown of life;
Rev. 18:2 of the fallen city of — Babylon which has become the “‘haunt”’ (Arndt,
875; RSV) of every unclean spirit and bird; Rev. 20:7 of the place in which —
Satan is cast for a period of a thousand years prior to the final tribulation and his
ultimate subjection (— Chiliasm in the Glossary of Technical Terms); (c) guard,
sentinel (Acts 12:10); (d) watch of the night reflecting the Roman practice of
dividing the time between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. into four periods (Matt. 14:25; Mk.
6:48; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18, 356), though Matt. 24:43 and Lk. 12:38 may reflect
the Heb. and Gk. practice of having only three watches (Arndt, 875; cf. Josephus,
War, 5, 510). Mk. 13:35 uses the common designations opse (late, in the evening),
mesonyktion (at midnight), alektorophonia (at cock-crow), proi (early, early in the
morning), all in the context of the exhortation to watch, “for you do not know when
the master of the house will come.”’
Related words which occur in the NT are: phylakiz6, imprison (Acts 22:19);
phylaktérion, lit.a safeguard, means of protection, especially an amulet or phylactery
(Matt. 23:5, a small box containing scripture texts bound on the forehead and arm
during prayer, cf. Exod. 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18; they were regarded as a mark
of devotion to the law and also as a protection against demonic influence [Arndt,
876; but see also D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 310; and J. Bowman,
Stud. Ev., I, 1959, 523 ff., who thinks that prayer-bands were not so-called in the
time of Jesus and that the reference is a warning against ostentatious wearing of
amulets or charms]; they are mentioned in the context of warnings against Phari-
saic concern for merely external righteousness); phylax, guard, sentinel (Matt.
27:65D; Acts 5:23; 12:6, 19). C. Brown
ypnyo pew | y pn yo péw (grégored), watch, be on the alert, be watchful.
OT grégoreod is a late pres. found in Hel. Gk. and is formed from the perf. egrégora
of egeiro (rouse, stir). In the LXX it stands for ‘amad (stand) in Neh. 7:3, and
for Sagad (watch) in Jer. 5:6; 38(31):28; Lam. 1:14; Dan. 9:14 (Theod.). It has
no Heb. equivalent in Bar. 2:9; 1 Macc. 12:27; Test. Ben. 10:1; cf. Josephus, Ant.
11, 47.
136
GUARD/GUILT
NT Followers of Christ are exhorted to be watchful and alert either to dangers or
for opportunities in Matt. 24:42; 25:13; 26:41; Mk. 13:35, 37; 14:38; Acts
20:31; 1 Cor. 16:13; Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:6, 10; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 3:2f.; 16:15.
On népho (be sober) — Drunken, Sober. C. Brown
| dypunvéo | ayponvéw (agrypned), keep oneself awake, be awake,
YP keep watch, guard, care; aypuzvia (agrypnia), wakeful-
ness.
CL & OT agrypneo is found from Theognis onwards, in papyri, Philo and the LXX
where it occurs 11 times (chiefly for Sagad, watch), e.g. Job 21:32; Pss. 101(102):
7; 126(127):1. The noun agrypnia occurs in the LXX only in the Apoc. (10 times),
e.g. Sir. 34(31):1 f., 20.
NT Jesus charged his disciples to be on the alert (Mk. 13:33; Lk. 21:36). A similar
charge is repeated in Eph. 6:18 at the climax of the discourse on the Christian’s
armour. In Heb. 13:17 obedience to leaders is urged “for they are keeping watch
over your souls, as men who will have to give account.’ The noun occurs only in
the plur. in 2 Cor.6:5 and 11:27 of Paul’s “watching”’ or “sleepless nights’ endured
for the sake of the church. C. Brown
—> Command, — Law, — Teach
(a). Arndt, 13 f., 166, 822 f., 875 f.; G. Bertram, phylassé etc., TDNT IX 236-44; H. Riesenfeld,
tered etc., TDNT VIII 140-51.
(b). G. Eichholz, ‘“Bewahren und Bewahren des Evangeliums’’, in H. Gollwitzer and T. Traub,
eds., Héren und Handeln. Festschrift fiir Ernst Wolf zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, 1962.
Guilt, Cause, Convict, Blame
Whereas — sin is a general word for doing wrong in the sight of God, guilt is a
legal and judicial term which implies criminal responsibility in the eyes of a court
of law, whether that court is human or divine. This is illustrated by the adj. enochos,
a legal term used to indicate that a person accused before a court is guilty. aitia
denotes the ground of the charge. On the other hand, the meaning of the group of
words connected with elencho extends well beyond the legal sphere. In the OT and
the NT the concept of guilt is personalized and radicalized through its association
with Yahweh or the Father of Jesus Christ. — Righteousness; — Forgiveness;
—> Reconciliation.
aitia (aitia), ground, cause, reason, charge; aitioc
(aitios), responsible, guilty; aiti@pa (aitioma), charge;
avanoAoyntoc (anapologétos), inexcusable; avaitiog (anaitios), innocent;
Gpeuntoc (amemptos), blameless; avéyKAntos (anenklétos), blameless, irreproach-
able.
CL aitia means the ground or motive of a thought or action; in a causal sense the
origin, occasion, of a thing, event or phenomenon. In Gk. philosophy the word
occurs for the first time in accounts of the thought of Anaximander (middle of the
137
aitia
GUILT
6th century B.c.). From the 5th century onwards (e.g. Aristotle) it becomes the
established term for the origin, cause, of natural phenomena (cf. Aristot., Phys.
194 b 16; Met. 983 a 26; F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, U, 1946, 311-9).
Nevertheless, aitia is only seldom used in a good or neutral sense (cf. Liddell-
Scott, 44). Usually the word carries the sense of charge, accusation, blame (as in
Aesch., Plato), indicating the responsibility and guilt which attaches to an act.
Likewise aitiOma, a word not found before Acts, but occurring in classical Gk.
from Aesch. in the form aitiama, means a charge against a wrongdoer. aitios means
culpable, responsible. The compound adj. anapologétos is used in the same context
to indicate the hopelessness of a case for the defence at law; it is found in the 2nd
century B.c. (e.g. Polyb.), and means without excuse.
oT 1. The LXX uses aitia consistently. The word occurs 21 times in addition to 3
translations in secondary MSS. Of these 18 are in the Apocrypha without Heb.
equivalent (except for Wis. 17:13); 1-4 Macc. account for 13 instances. Apart from
4 Macc. 1:16, where the philosophical concept of causation dominates, every
example of aitia in the LXX has to do with some event which belongs to the
darker side of life: fighting (2 Macc. 4:42), idolatry (Wis. 14:27), death (Wis.
18:18; 1 Macc. 9:10), sensual pleasure (Susanna 14, Theod.). As in classical Gk.,
the term is hardly ever used in a good sense, but rather as a technical term in
irregular situations or in trials.
2. The other OT examples confirm this. In Gen. 4:13 the Yahwist uses the term
‘awon, iniquity, in the cry of Cain: “My punishment [LXX aitia] is too great.”
The culpable act and the punishment as its inevitable consequence are for him
causally related (cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 266). Job 18:14
contains an aphorism on the inescapable destiny of the wicked to be smitten by a
fatal disease. Here the LXX translation differs from the Heb. text, using aitia in its
description of death as a kind of majestic stroke of fate. Finally, Prov. 28:17
concludes that “for reason of [Heb. ‘astiq] blood-guilt’’, i.e. murder, a person must
go to the grave, wandering in insecurity.
3. aitios is found only at 1 Sam. 22:22 (apart from 6 examples in the Apocrypha,
where it means having become guilty). Here David declares that he “‘has occa-
sioned the death” of certain priests. anapologétos and aitidma do not occur in the
LXX.
NT In the NT this group of words is not frequent: aitios and aitioma occur only
once each (in Heb. and Acts), aitia 20 times (only in the Gospels, Acts and Heb.).
1. Some texts use aitia in a purely causal sense (for this reason, therefore),
stating the reason why something happens. Thus the woman with an issue of blood
gave Jesus the reason why she had touched him (Lk. 8:47). Peter inquired the
reason for the visit (Acts 10:21). Timothy’s mother and grandmother are a ground
for a special reminder (2 Tim. 1:6). Similar uses are found in 2 Tim. 1:12; Tit. 1:4;
Heb. 2:11. The noun aitios is used in Heb. 5:9 in a positive sense of Christ as the
‘source’ (RSV) of eternal salvation for all who obey him.
2. In a second group of passages aitia is found in connection with legal charges
and accusations brought against someone. At Matt. 19:3 the Pharisees asked
whether — divorce is lawful ‘‘for every cause’ as though it were the inevitable
consequence of such causes, whereas Jesus’ answer makes possible a new beginning
138
GUILT
for the disordered marriage. In v. 10, however, aitia means a case. Possibly there
is an allusion here to a concurrent discussion on the connection between marriage
and discipleship which presented a choice between a wife and the Lord. Acts 22:24;
23:28; 25:18, 27 refer to the trials of Paul. In each case the passage is concerned
to bring to light the ground of the charges brought against Paul, or to show that
they cannot be established. Acts 26:7 uses for such unprovable allegations the noun
aitioma, charge (here only in the NT). aition is used in a similar sense in the story
of the disturbance led by Demetrius (Acts 19:40): there is danger that a charge will
be laid because of this disorder for which no satisfactory explanation or reason can
be given.
3. A third group has to do with the occasion for a death sentence.
(a) The inscription on the cross specified the charge on which Jesus was con-
demned to death, the “cause” of death (Matt. 27:37; Mk. 15:26). This indicated
to the onlooker that the execution was inevitable because of Jesus’ claim to king-
ship. The Gospels, however, testify to a deeper necessity than the immediate
human factors, for it sprang from the purpose of God (— Necessity, art. dei). In
Acts 13:28 this “‘cause’’ of death is mentioned again in a speech of Paul, and
described as unjustified in terms of human justice.
(b) In the report of the trial before Pilate into which are interwoven many legal
ideas Pilate pronounces his repeated conclusion that he can find no guilt in Jesus
deserving death (in Jn. 18:38; 19:4, 6, aitia; in Lk. 23:4, 14, 22, aition). Hence in
the Gospel accounts the demand of the crowd for the death of the innocent one is
all the more culpable (— Cross, art. stauros, NT 1). In a similar sense, cf. the use of
—> enochos, guilty. (On the trial of Jesus see E. Bammel, ed., The Trial of Jesus,
1970; J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus, 1959; D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus, 1971.)
(c) Acts 28:18 mentions the charge made against Paul of committing a capital
crime. Since, however, there was insufficient ground (aitia) for the accusation, the
Romans wished to save him from unjust condemnation to death.
4. The words of this group are used in the OT and NT to indicate the responsi-
bility of a man for his action, together with the resultant consequences. The same
applies to anapologétos which occurs twice in Paul’s letter to the Romans and means
the state of being without excuse in a legal sense. In the light of eschatology, the
ungodly have no possibility of being excused. They stand under God’s destroying
wrath (— Anger; Rom. 1:20). No man is able, under any circumstances, to make
an excuse to God (Rom. 2:1). Everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, is deservingly
subject to death, and therefore, as the argument of Rom. 2 continues, man is
totally dependent on God’s free — grace and goodness in Jesus Christ. He took
our sentence of death on himself and by this means has truly ‘‘excused”’ us. The
theological emphasis given to the theme that Christ “‘must’’ suffer in this way is a
logical counterpart to the ideas associated with this group of words. _F.. Thiele
5. The adj. anaitios, innocent, occurs in Acts 16:37 and Matt. 12:5, 7. amemptos
means blameless, of the Mosaic covenant (Heb. 8:7) and the heart (1 Thess. 3:13),
otherwise only of persons (Phil. 3:6 [cf. Gen. 17:1]; 2:15 [cf. Job 1:1]; Lk. 1:7).
The adv. amemptos occurs at 1 Thess. 2:10; 3:13 v./.; 5:23. Both adj. and adv. are
connected with memphomai, find fault with, blame (Mk. 7:2 v./.; Rom. 9:19; Heb.
8:8; cf. Arndt, 44, 503). anenklétos means blameless, irreproachable, of Christians
139
GUILT
who will be presented blameless by Christ on the day of the Lord (1 Cor. 1:8; cf.
Col. 1:22). A blameless life is also required of Christian leaders in the present
(1 Tim. 3:10; Tit. 1:6 f.). C. Brown
[ayo éléyyw (elenchd), bring to light, expose, set forth,
convict, convince, punish, discipline; €Aeyyoc (elenchos),
proof, evidence, conviction, reproof, correction; éAeyydc (elegmos), conviction,
reproof, punishment; &Aeyéic (elenxis), conviction, rebuke, reproof.
cL 1. elencho is found from Homer onwards (e.g. J/. 9, 552; Od. 21, 424), probably
originally (like the noun elenchos, reproach) in the sense of blame, insult; then
in the sense of test, examine, enquire into a matter (cf. TDNT II, 473 n. 2). In Plato
(Soph. 242b; Grg. 470c; Phdr. 273b, etc.) and Aristotle (Soph.El. 170* 24; Eth.Nic.
1146? 23), elenchd is used of the logical exposition of the facts of a matter for the
purpose of refuting the (usually sophistical) argument of an opponent. Thus the
word developed its principal meaning of convince, refute (e.g. Democ., Frag. 60,
222; Zeno, Frag. 41). In Stoicism the concept was transferred from the intellectual
argument to the application of philosophical ethics. Epictetus is concerned with
correcting the practical principles of living (Dissertationes 1, 26, 17; 2, 1, 32; 2,
14, 20; 2, 26, 4; 3, 9, 13; 3, 23, 33 and often). Philo (Spec. Leg. 3, 54; 4, 6,
40 and often) and Josephus (War 7, 330, 447 and often) spoke of the correction
which men receive from their own consciences, the Logos, the truth, or from God.
The idea of correction finally appears again in Hellenistic and Jewish literature in
contexts which produce the meaning, to accuse, convict (Appian, Bella Civilia 5, 28;
Diod. Sic. 13, 90, 4); and elenché acquired a sense which brought it near to paideud,
or paideia, the basic concept of Gk. education and learning (—> Teach, art. paideuo).
2. The noun elenchos, current from Pindar onwards, has a similar variety of
meanings. It means: (a) proof (Demosthenes 4, 15; Plato, Grg. 47le; especially
Aristot., Soph.El. 1, 165? 2); (b) conviction BGU 1138, 13; Epigrammata Graeca
ex lapidibus conlecta, 1878, 814; (c) correction, reproof, censure (Philo, Rev. Div.
Her. 76). The nouns elegmos and elenxis, common in the LXX and the NT, are
found chiefly in the Hellenistic period, and consequently have as a rule the meaning
of conviction or correction.
oT In the LXX elencho is used in the great majority of cases to render the hiph. of
yakah: to bring to account, to correct. elenchos generally represents the corres-
ponding noun ¢ékahat, rebuke, correction. It is worthy of note that the words of
this group are found in this sense mainly in the later books of the OT (Job, Pss.,
Prov.), and in the Apocrypha (Wis., Sir.). elegmos is used in Isa. 37:3 and 50:2 with
the meaning of rebuke, reproach, disgrace. At Num. 5:18 f., 23 f., 27 the LXX
translates the “water of bitterness’? used in the ordeal by the difficult phrase hydor
tou elegmou, water of conviction. elenxis occurs only at Job 21:4; 23:2, where it
renders the Heb. siah, concern, complaint.
1. The historical books occasionally use elenché in secular contexts: because of a
dispute about a well, Abraham complained to Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 21:
25); in the quarrel between Jacob and Laban, the kinsmen were to judge (Gen.
140
GUILT
31:37) etc. In these cases elencho refers to the clarification of a practical point at
dispute, not an intellectual question (see above, CL 1).
2. In prophetic proclamation the vb. has a legal character, as is shown from its
use alongside the terms righteousness and judgment. The task of the priests to
pronounce judgment and give advice is clearly presupposed (Hos. 4:4; Ezek. 3:26;
cf. Amos 5:10; Isa. 29:21; Mal. 2:7). In a negative sense, the prophetic message
of judgment spoke of reproof (Jer. 2:19) and the day of punishment (Hos. 5:9)
which Yahweh will bring upon his rebellious people. Positively, it proclaimed
salvation in terms of justice for the poor (Isa. 11:3 f.) and the helpful healing
instruction which Yahweh will give to the nations (Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3).
3. This group of words comes into its own in the Wisdom Literature, chiefly
in the sense of correction and punishment. On the one hand, the Psalmist prays for
preservation from divine punishment (Ps. 6:1); on the other the correction which
comes from Yahweh, or from just men, is regarded as a help and benefit (Ps. 141:5;
Job 5:17). This thought is developed particularly in proverbial wisdom. While
the ungodly neither accepts nor deserves correction, the wise man is grateful for
it, for he recognizes in it the love of Yahweh (Prov. 9:7 f.; 3:11 f.; 29:15). As
may be seen from the repeated parallel use of elenchd and paideud (in Prov. 3:12,
Aquila and Symmachus replace elenchei with paideuei; 15:12; Sir. 18:13), or
elenchos and paideia (Prov. 6:23), the use of the words of this group in the Wisdom
Literature comes close to the Stoic ideal of education and character training (cf.
on this G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 418-59). The godly man is
trained by correction and discipline to follow the right path in life (Prov. 6:23;
5:12 f.; 19:25; Sir. 18:13).
4. On grounds of the exhortation in Lev. 19:17, “You shall reason with your
neighbour’’, correction played an important part in Judaism both as a command-
ment to love one’s neighbour, and as a task which earns merit (Sifra Lev. 19:17;
Sanh. 21b; Pes. K. 25, 163 b; cf. SB I 787 ff.). It has a special importance in the
Qumran texts. He who observes his brother transgressing the law, must censure
him, at first before witnesses (CD 7:2). If this correction achieves nothing, the
case must be brought before the whole community which then proceeds to punish
the sinner (1QS 3:6).
NT The words of this group are found in the NT in the gospels (especially Jn.),
and also in the later epistles (especially the Pastorals). The majority of examples
occur in the later writings. Mk. does not use these words and the early example in
Paul is at 1 Cor. 14:24.
1. In the Gospel of John, elenchdé means, as in the prophetic warnings of judg-
ment, to reveal and convict of sin. It is the negative, reverse side of God’s saving
work of revelation (Jn. 3:20; 16:8; cf. also Eph. 5:13; Jude 15). The thing revealed
is expressed by means of peri with the gen. (Jn. 8:46, sin; 16:8 ff., sin, righteous-
ness and judgment; cf. Lk. 3:19, an illegitimate marriage; Jude 15, deeds of ungod-
liness).
2. elencho is found particularly frequently in hortatory passages (e.g. Eph. 5:13).
The Pastoral Epistles assign to the leader of the community the task of rebuking
church members (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Tit. 2:15) and of convicting opponents
of their error (Tit. 1:9, 13). The corresponding activity is called elegmos in 2 Tim.
14]
GUILT
3:16, and elenxis in 2 Pet. 2:16. In this connection mention should also be made of
the instructions about church order in Matt. 18:15 ff., where it is said that erring
church members should first be told privately of their fault, then in the presence
of several witnesses and, if this be fruitless, the matter should be laid before the
whole church (cf. the corresponding procedure at Qumran, see above OT, 4).
3. It may be seen from the citation of Prov. 3:11 f. at Heb. 12:5 and Rev. 3:19,
that the Hellenistic concept of education (see above CL, 1; OT, 3) has also found its
way into the NT. In both cases elencho and paideuoé are used in parallel.
4. The interpretation of elenchos in Heb. 11:1 presents difficulties. Its meaning
here can be deduced only from its cofitext in the definition of faith given in this
chapter. The sentence falls into two parts. The second half is a parallelism, to be
compared with the first part: elenchos strengthens hypostasis, and pragmata ou
blepomena, things not seen, explains elpizomena, things hoped for. The concepts
are unmistakably Hellenistic in character. The purpose of the statement is not so
much to encourage subjective assurance of faith, as if faith could give the status of
reality to what lies in the future. It is rather to secure a “‘firm link with objectivity”
(O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrder, KEK 13, 19661", 373). Accordingly, elenchos
should be interpreted neither subjectively, as if it denoted absence of doubt, nor
in a hortatory sense, as if it meant correction, nor yet in an intellectual sense, mean-
ing evidence. Rather it should be understood in its context in the theology of Heb.
in a Strictly theological sense, as referring to conviction, about the power of the
future world promised by God which is here described in the language of secular
Gk. as “things not seen’ (on the whole subject see O. Michel, op. cit., 372 ff.; >
Faith, art. pistis NT 4; Form, art. hypostasis NT 2). Heb. 11:1 would then mean:
“But faith is the pledge of things hoped for, the conviction of things we cannot see.”
H.-G. Link
ae Evo xoc (enochos), guilty, subject to, liable to, or deserving
ie Soh a thing or penalty; évéyw (enecho), hold fast, be subject
to.
cL Gk. literature has the adj. enochos, derived from enecho (Pindar), meaning
to hold fast; pass., to be held fast, be subject to (Plato, Xenophon, Isocrates).
It is frequently used as a technical legal term: a person is made liable, or subject
to a certain penalty under the law. The forum (lawcourt, laws, men or gods) before
which he is guilty or liable is usually referred to in the dative (e.g. Xen., Memora-
bilia 1, 2, 64). Frequently enochos is also used with the gen. of the crime (Plato,
Laws 2, 914e) or of the punishment.
OT The LXX has enochos 21 times in the same sense as secular Gk. The term is used
in the LXX chiefly to refer to a person who is condemned to — death because
of an action incurring blood-guilt. enochos serves to translate Heb. formulae
expressing the death penalty (e.g. Gen. 26:11; Exod. 22:2; Lev. 20:9-27, in cases
of sodomy, incest, homosexuality, soothsaying, etc. “their blood be upon them’’;
Num. 35:27; Deut. 19:10; Jos. 2:19, the blood-oath taken by the spies before
Rahab). In Isa. 54:17 (LXX) enochos is used of those who incur guilt by engaging
in a legal dispute with Israel.
142
GUILT
NT The 10 NT examples of enochos follow the same pattern.
1. Matt. 5:21 f. Here, in a threefold progression, the respective courts before
which a lawbreaker is arraigned are referred to in the dative: krisis, local court;
synedrion, supreme national court; gehenna, — hell (the place of punishment is
named at once in the acc. instead of the supreme judge). The lesser or greater
degree of guilt is reflected in the nature of the court and the severity of the punish-
ment involved (cf. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 1963®, 165-71; and also
W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964, 236 ff.; D. Hill, The
Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 120 ff.; >» Curse, art. rhaka; >» Wisdom, Folly, art.
moria).
2. Jas. 2:10 uses enochos of the lawbreaker. Every single sin, however insignifi-
cant it may appear to be, makes the doer “totally guilty’, and therefore liable to
— judgment. |
3. It is in accordance with OT usages when, in the Matthean and Marcan ac-
counts of the trial of Jesus, the death sentence is pronounced using the term
enochos. The high priest regards the evidence of blasphemy (— Revile) as conclu-
sive in Jesus’ case, and declares him “guilty of death’? (enochos thanatou estin,
Matt. 26:66; cf. Mk. 14:64). The two other occurrences of enochos likewise have a
legal character.
(a) Heb. 2:15 explains the significance of the death of Jesus, which frees those
who were “condemned” to be slaves (i.e. of the devil and of death).
(b) 1 Cor. 11:27 concludes that he who takes the bread and wine unworthily
becomes “guilty” of the body and blood of the Lord present in them. The Lord
gave himself up to death for the sake of the brethren; the opposite action, loveless
behaviour towards one’s neighbour (cf. Matt. 5:21 f.), results in guilt. Here too the
term enochos is used of a matter of life and death.
4. Similarly Mk. 3:29 uses enochos with a gen. of the penalty; he who blas-
phemes against the — Holy Spirit will be guilty of an “eternal sin” (— Revile, art.
blasphémeo). F. Thiele
| wee GUEUMTOG (amemptos), blameless; auéuntws (amemptos),
| auepntos | blamelessly; jpéupoualt (memphomai), find fault;
LénwiL“olpoc (mempsimoiros), fault-finding; wéuwic (mempsis), reason for com-
plaint.
CL The word amemptos is used most frequently in secular Gk. in the sense of
blameless, without reproach. It may be used of persons (Euripides, Demosthenes)
and things (Xenophon, Plutarch), in the latter case suggesting perfection. On
occasion amemptos was used with the connotation “‘content’’, in the sense that one
is not characterized by blaming (Xenophon, Cyril). The word occurs in Wis. 10:5,
15; 18:21 in the sense of moral purity.
The vb. memphomai means to blame, to find fault with. With the dat. and acc.
of the person it may connote the idea of regarding someone as blameworthy
(Herodotus).
The adj. mempsimoiros is used in secular Gk. to characterize one who was apt
to find fault (Isocrates, Lucian), while mempsis indicates the ground of, or reason
143
GUILT
for, complaint or blame (Aeschylus). It is used in Wis. 13:6 of those who failed to
see God behind his created works. ‘‘For these men there is but small blame.”
oT In the LXX amemptos occurs as the translation of several Heb. words meaning
clean, pure (bar, zakah, zakak, hap), perfect, complete (tam, tamim, tahér,
nagi), to be righteous (sddaq), and possibly straight, upright (yasar). The adj.
amemptos occurs in parallelism with katharos in Job 11:4 to describe the blame-
lessness of Job’s character. In this instance it stands for the Heb. bar (pure). The
vb. zakah is translated by amemptos in Job 15:14in the LXX. In this verse amemptos
occurs in parallelism with dikaios (righteous). In Job 33:9 the Heb. Hap is translated
by amemptos and qualified by the phrase “I have not transgressed.” In Job 2:3 it is
difficult to ascertain whether amemptos stands for yasar or tam. In Job 1:8 the
Heb. tam is translated by amemptos in a verse describing Job’s blamelessness, and
in Job 22:3 it stands for the Heb. sddaq (be righteous). In most instances the word
amemptos connotes moral purity. It was applied also, however, to the heavenly
bodies (Job 15:15; 25:5) and Job’s doctrine (Job 11:4). The adv. amemptos occurs
in Est. 3:13 inthe sense of honourable or well intentioned, with regard to Artaxerxes’
efforts to unify his empire.
In Job 33:10 mempsis occurs as the translation of the Heb. t*ni’ah (opposition,
or occasion for opposition). It is used in parallelism with the phrase “he counts
me as his enemy.” The sense is that of reason for complaint. In Job 39:7 the word
mempsis occurs as the translation of t°siu‘ah (shout). Since it describes the shouts of a
driver to the wild donkey, it may connote the idea of scolding, hence censure. In
Job 15:15(A); 33:23; and Wis. 13:6 the word connotes the concept of fault or
blame.
NT The word amemptos occurs in the NT in the sense of moral purity in Lk. 1:6,
where it is used in the sense of blamelessness with regard to the commandments
of the Lord. In Phil. 3:6 Paul uses the word to describe his standing with regard
to the law. The connotation of the word in these instances is that the individual
is not guilty of disobedience to the laws of God, hence there is no blameworthiness
nor susceptibility to charge as far as the law is concerned.
The word is used in a somewhat similar sense in Phil. 2:15 to describe the moral
purity of those believers who do not grumble or question. They are further des-
cribed as without blemish (amdmos). In 1 Thess. 3:13 Paul expresses the desire that
the Thessalonian Christians may be “‘blameless in holiness” at the parousia (cf.
Matt. 25:34-40; — Present, art. parousia). This blamelessness is the result of their
abounding in love one for another (v. 12).
The adv. amemptos occurs in 1 Thess. 2:10 and 5:23. In the former verse it
describes the activity of Paul among the Thessalonians in regard to there being
no cause for censure or blame on his part. In the latter verse Paul uses the word of
the effect of the total work of sanctification at the parousia.
The verb memphomai is attested in Rom. 9:19 and Heb. 8:8 as well as the. TR
of Mark 7:2. In each instance the basic connotation of blame or find fault obtains.
In the TR of Mark 7:2 the word is used of the reaction of the Pharisees to
some of Jesus’ disciples who were eating with unwashed hands. The implication
is that the Pharisees found the disciples open to blame, because they were guilty of
violating the Jewish tradition. (— Baptism, art. niptd; — Hand, art. cheir.)
144
GUILT
In Rom. 9:19 the word is used by Paul in a rhetorical question that occurs in an
exposition of the sovereignty of God: “‘Why does he yet find fault ?”’ In the light of
God’s sovereign inexorable purposes one may raise the question of human re-
sponsibility. The word memphomai clearly connotes “guilt”? or blameworthiness
in this context for Paul’s argument is that God’s sovereignty does not free sinful
men of fault or guilt before God.
The word amemptos is applied to the first covenant in Heb. 8:7 in a negative
sense. If the first covenant had been faultless there would have been no need for
another.
In Heb. 8:8 memphomai occurs with the dative of the person in a sense similar
to the above but in contrast to amemptos (v. 7). The Sinaitic covenant has been
described as not being faultless (amemptos). A fault of the old covenant is found in
the people to whom it was given (vv. 8, 9) who did not keep it, for “‘he finds fault
[memphomenos] with them’”’ (v. 8). The context does not seem to indicate that the
intrinsic nature of the commandments was changed, but rather the mode of recep-
tion of the covenant (vv. 8-12, quoting Jer. 31:31-34).
The word memphomai then connotes the act of blaming or finding fault, i.e. to
regard an individual or object as having fault or blame.
The word mempsimoiros (lit. finding fault with one’s lot [moira]) occurs only
once in the NT in Jude 16 in the sense of grumbler, malcontent. 7. McComiskey
—> Cross, — Judgement, — Punishment, —- Redemption, — Sin
(a). F. Biichsel, elenchd etc., TDNT II 473-76; W. Grundmann, memphomai etc., TDNT IV 571-4;
H. Hanse, echo etc., TDNT II 828 (on enechd); R. S. Moxon, The Doctrine of Sin, 1922; C. Ryder
Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Sin, 1953; F. R. Tennant, The Concept of Sin, 1912; H. Thielicke,
Theological Ethics, I, 1968, IJ, 1969 (see indexes); N. P. Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and Original
Sin, 1929. On the psychological and pastoral aspects of guilt see D. Belgum, Guilt: Where Religion
and Psychology Meet, 1963; H. McKeating, Living with Guilt, 1970; J. G. McKenzie, Guilt: Its
Meaning and Significance, 1962; K. Rahner, “Guilt and its Remission: The Borderland between
Theology and Psychotherapy’’, Theological Investigations, \1, 1963, 265-82; and ‘‘Does Tradi-:
tional Theology Represent Guilt as Innocuous as a Factor in Human Life?’’, Theological Investi-
gations, XIII, 1975, 133-51; P. Tournier, Guilt and Grace: A Psychological Study, 1962; A. Uleyn,
The Recognition of Guilt: A Study in Pastoral Psychology, 1969.
(b). G. Bally, ““Schuld und Existenz”, Wege zum Menschen, 9, 1960, 305 ff.; M. Boss, Lebensangst,
Schuldgefiihle und psychotherapeutische Befreiung, 19652; M. Buber, ‘‘Schuld und Schuldgefiihle’’,
in A. Sborowitz, ed., Der leidende Mensch, 1960, 106 ff.; G. Condrau, “Angst and Schuld im
menschlichen Dasein’, Wege zum Menschen 3, 1966, 65 ff.; H. Dombois, ed., Die weltliche
Strafe in der evangelischen Theologie, 1959; P. Guilluy, ed., La Culpabilité Fondamentale: Péché
Originel et Anthropologie Moderne, 1975; H. Harsch, Das Schuldproblem in Theologie und
Tiefenpsychologie, 1964; A. Koberle, ““Das Schuldproblem in theologischer und tiefenpsycholo-
gischer Sicht”’, in W. Bitter, ed., Psychotherapie und Seelsorge, 1952, 154 ff.; K. Koch, “‘Stinde
und Schuld”’, RGG® VI 476 ff.; F. Leist, “Die Grenzen zwischen Tiefenpsychologie und Seel-
sorge’’, in W. Bitter, op. cit., 163 ff.; H. Lindinger, ‘“‘Die Erfahrung von Schuld und Tod beim
heutigen Menschen’, Wege zum Menschen 4, 1967, 121 ff.; R. Pfisterer, “‘Die Schuld — Schande
oder Chance?’’, Wege zum Menschen 7/8, 1962, 240 ff.; R. Schneider, Der Mensch vor dem
Gericht der Geschichte, 1946; E. Schweizer, “‘Schuld und Tod in biblischer Sicht’’, ZNW 27, 1956,
728 ff.; G. Suttinger, ““Der schuldiger Tater als psychologisches Problem’’, Wege zum Menschen
7/8, 1962, 225 ff.
145
Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying on of Hands
The uses of the word cheir, hand, are many and various. It can mean fig. side,
power, handwriting or army. In Biblical usage particular importance is attached to
the use of cheir as part for the whole, as a substitute for a person and his activity
and dealings. Thus the hand of God stands for his majesty and supreme power in
the affairs of men. On the other hand, Jesus and his disciples were delivered into
the hands of men. The thought here is of surrender to the power and mercy of their
enemies (— Judgment, art. paradidomi). Related to this use of cheir is the notion
of the right hand, dexia (cheir). This expresses a person’s power and authority. To
sit at the right hand (en dexia) signifies the possession of equal — power and dignity
(— Glory, art. doxa). Finally, the laying on of hands plays a special part in the
NT in commissioning and empowering. This is dealt with in the art. on epitithémi
tas cheiras.
| O&CIG | d&&10¢ (dexios), right; degid (dexia), right hand.
CL dexios which is related to Latin dexter means right. It is possible that there is a
connection with dechomai, to receive; dexios would then mean acceptable.
Attested from Homer on, it means: (a) right (opposite to left); hé dexia cheir, the
right hand, then the right side in general; (b) skilful (opposite to clumsy); (c) lucky.
The plur. dexiai can mean contract, because of the handshake which sealed it. The
right hand symbolizes power, success, good fortune, loyalty.
This also holds true in the NT. For the right hand in agreement see Gal. 2:9. The
angel in the tomb was sitting on the right side (Mk. 16:5; cf. also Jn. 21:6). In
the final judgment those who are chosen are summoned to the right hand of the
Son of man (Matt. 25:31 ff.).
oT The Heb. yamin is the only OT equivalent of dexios. God’s right hand is often
spoken of symbolically, especially in the Pss. It provides support (Ps. 18:35,
MT 18:36) and victory (Ps. 118:15). It even expresses the omnipresence of God
which embraces men everywhere (Ps. 139:10). Benjamin, lit. son of the right hand,
is interpreted as son of good fortune (Gen. 35:18). The place at a man’s right hand
is important as a place of honour (1 Ki. 2:19; Ps. 45:9, MT 45:10; Zech. 3:1).
Ps. 110:1 is particularly significant in the light of its use in the NT. The king of
Israel, placed by Yahweh at his right hand, perhaps at his accession to the throne,
is honoured as God’s co-regent, who by war and victory will overthrow the enemies
of Israel, and thus of God. (For discussion of background see A. Weiser, The
Psalms, 1952, 692-7; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, I, 1972, 768-72.)
146
HAND
NT In the NT Ps. 110:1 plays an important role in connection with statements
about the messiah. The verse is quoted or referred to indirectly 19 times, of
which 7 are in the Synoptics, 3 in Acts, 3 in Paul, 5 in Heb. and | in Pet. It is only
here that dexios has any theological significance. (It occurs altogether 54 times,
most frequently in Matt.)
1. Ps. 110:1 was probably interpreted messianically already in pre-NT times. At
all events, Jesus expounded it in this sense in Mk. 12:35 ff. par. Matt. 22:41-6,
Lk. 20:41-4. For Rab. Judaism the messiah was God’s eschatological, political
co-regent who would establish a visible kingdom of God on earth. Jesus clearly
rejected the political aspects of messiahship and was guarded in his attitude to the
title of Son of David (— Son). But in the final days of his ministry he alluded to
him as if to a third person. ([Ed.] The context in Matt. and Mk. is particularly
significant, for Jesus’ question to the Pharisees about the Christ immediately
follows the lawyer’s question to Jesus as to which is the great commandment. The
reply that Jesus gave was: ‘“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with all your mind” [ Matt. 22:37]. He then added the
second great commandment and went on to ask, referring to Ps. 110:1: ““How is
it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord?” [Matt. 22:37]. The
implication is that as well as the — Lord whom men are commanded to serve and
worship with their whole being there is another Lord who has the same title and
sits at the Lord’s right hand. The question is put hypothetically, but it also has
bearing on who Jesus is and what is his divinely appointed rdéle. The hearers were
unable to give an answer. In the verses that follow Jesus went on to pronounce
judgment on the scribes and Pharisees whose teaching and practice had caused them
to miss the significance of what God is saying and doing.)
At his trial (Mk. 14:62 par. Matt. 26:64, Lk. 22:69), although unarmed and
ridiculed, Jesus solemnly declared that he was “‘the Son of man” who will sit ‘“‘at the
right hand of Power’’ (Dan. 7:13 combined with Ps. 110:1). With this unheard-of
claim he demanded recognition that God exercises his power in a way differing
radically from that of the world. God works under and indeed by means of con-
ditions of the greatest human powerlessness. The one who will come in judgment at
the right hand of God’s throne (— Power, art. thronos) is the — Lamb who was
slain (Rev. 5:6).
2. This is the only sense in which the primitive church could speak of Jesus
being seated at God’s right hand. This is pictured in various ways. Rom. 8:34
lays more emphasis upon the priestly function of the heavenly intercessor. Col. 3:1
stresses the fact that Christ is now hidden in the divine world above. On the other
hand, Eph. 1:20 and | Pet. 3:22 underline the original meaning of his co-regency.
For Heb. especially Jesus’ session at God’s right hand (“‘the point in what we are
saying’ [8:1]) is not the exercise of worldly power but the reign of the One who has
offered himself as a sacrifice and has therefore been exalted above all angels (1:3,
13). This sacrifice of himself which has led to his exaltation is the unchangeable
source of all the blessings of salvation towards which the tired Christian com-
munity must hasten (12:2). However, his session at God’s right hand does not
yet mean the immediate defeat of all his enemies. This is reserved for the escha-
tological consummation (10:12; cf. 1 Cor. 15:25).
3. A polemical motive is added in Acts. The proclamation of Jesus’ session at
147
HAND
God’s right hand (2:34) and his exaltation to that position (2:33; 5:31) becomes a
word of judgment upon the Jews and their pride in the Law. The one they killed is
the messiah! Stephen saw him standing at God’s right hand (7:55f.), “as if
to meet Stephen” (J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, 1873, II, 583). That
Jesus is standing at God’s right hand indicates that he has the role of witness for
the defence; he appears before God as a witness on behalf of his own witnesses on
earth. The witness stands, the judge sits! C. Blendinger
| GPIOTEPOG, EVWOVVLLOG | apiotepoc (aristeros), left; edsavvploc (eudnymos), left.
OT The Heb. s°mo’/ (e.g. Gen. 15:15; 24:9) is normally translated by aristeros.
But eudnymos is also used. Significance is attached to which hand Jacob used
in blessing in Gen. 48:14. Both the right and left hands are mentioned in Jdg. 16:29
but without any theological significance. But the left is a symbol for folly and ill
fortune in Eccles. 10:2.
NT Paul speaks of having “‘weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the
left”? (2 Cor. 6:7) in his defence of his ministry. The expression ex arister6n is
used by James and John who wanted the chief places for themselves on the right
and left hands of Jesus (Mk. 10:37). By contrast Lk. 23:33 mentions the two
malefactors crucified on the right and left hand of Jesus. In all these instances
aristeros has a good or at least neutral sense. eudnymos is used in the same contexts
in Mk. 10:40 and 15:27; cf. Matt. 20:21, 23; 27:38. It has a neutral sense in
Acts 21:3 and Rev. 10:2. But it has a pejorative sense in Matt. 25:33, 41 in the
parable of the sheep and the goats which is in keeping with its lit. meaning. For
euonymos means lit. of good name or omen, well-named, thus avoiding the ill-
omen attaching to the left. It thus became a euphemism for the left (cf. the secular
background in Liddell-Scott, 740, 240). C. Brown
-————————————— xyeip (cheir), hand; nvyyy (pygmé), fist; daKtvdAoc
| ein | (daktylos), finger.
CL cheir is found from Mycenaean Greek (Linear B) on. The hand, the member of
the human — body that a man puts to the most active use, serves him both in
his work and in defence of himself. His strength and energy are made effective
through his hands. Therefore the hand is particularly important.
In secular Gk. the plur. cheires and dynameis (power(s)) can be used synony-
mously. But the hand does not stand simply as a symbol of power. When it is
linked with a personal name, it stands as a substitute for the person himself in
action. cheir means handwriting in Hyperides (4th cent. B.c.) and Philodemus (lst
cent. B.c.), cf. the related usage in the formula té emé cheiri, with my own hand
(1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11).
oT 1. The OT speaks of a person’s activity as the work of his hand. The hand
(Heb. yad) is a symbol of human — power. Thus, to fall into someone’s hand
means to come into their power (Gen. 32:11, MT 32:12; Jdg. 2:14; Jer. 27:6 f.). In
148
HAND
2 Sam. 18:18 cheir (corresponding to the Heb. yad) means a mark or monument
(cf. Isa. 56:5). cheir is likewise a symbol for divine omnipotence (2 Chr. 20:6; Ps.
89:21 [MT 89:22]). God’s hand created heaven and earth and with his hand he
controls them (Isa. 48:13). For Israel God’s hand means salvation and release;
but for their enemies, destruction and ruin (Exod. 7:4; 9:3; 1 Sam. 7:13). The
hand of the Lord is used in the same way to express God’s righteous punishment
(1 Sam. 5:6, 11), but also his loving care (Ezr. 7:6; Job 5:18; Ps. 145:16; Isa.
49:16) and his divine protection (Isa. 51:16).
2. Both in figurative language about God and with reference to men the two
hands do not have equal status. By comparison with the left hand a higher value is
placed upon the right, because it is the one that is active (Exod. 15:6, 12; Ps.
118:15 f.; Isa. 41:13; cf. Matt. 5:30). There is an extraordinary richness about the
use of the hand in sign and figurative language. It serves to express displeasure,
passionate excitement (Num. 24:10), but also to express humble supplication (2
Chr. 6:12 f.; Ps. 28:2), joy (Ps. 47:1 [47:2]) and sorrow (Jer. 2:37), scornful
malicious joy (Ezek. 6:11), solemn oath (Gen. 14:22; 24:2, 9; 47:29; Ezr. 10:19)
and loyal citizenship (Prov. 6:1 ff.; 22:26). The sign on the hand (Exod. 13:9, 16;
Deut. 6:8; 11:18) is a permanent and picturesque way of expressing constant
remembrance of God’s saving acts and of his commandments for his people. To
fill someone’s hand means to install him to priestly office (Num. 3:3). Washing the
hands serves not only to fulfil the commandments concerning purification (Exod.
30:18 ff.), but also to signify an affirmation of innocence and a clear conscience
(Deut. 21:6; Ps. 26:6; cf. Job 17:9; Ps. 24:4; Matt. 27:24). This richness of
meaning which belongs to the concept hand in the OT lives on into Rab. Judaism
and continues in the NT.
NT The word cheir occurs 176 times in the NT with a few additional occurrences
in variant readings. It appears most frequently in Luke’s writings (Lk. 26
times; Acts 45), no doubt because of his preference for OT turns of phrase (espe-
cially in Acts).
1. cheir is often found, used literally, in the combination podes kai cheires, feet
and hands (Matt. 18:8; 22:13; Lk. 24:39; Jn. 11:44; Acts 21:11). The phrase
dia cheiros tinos (also plural), through someone, by someone (e.g. Mk. 6:2; Acts
5:12; 7:25; 11:30) is a Semitism representing the Heb. b*ydd, by, with. Similarly,
eis cheiras translates Heb. lidé, to, for. The hands can stand for a person (Acts
17:25). cheir is used 25 times in connection with the laying on of hands (— epithesis
ton cheiron).
2. As in the OT, the hand of the Lord means the embodiment of divine power.
It is also applied to Christ in Jn. 3:35; 10:28; 13:3. It works in creation (Acts
7:50; Heb. 1:10) and in God’s plan of salvation (Acts 4:28; cheir in combination
with boulé). It expresses his righteous punishment (Acts 13:11; Heb. 10:31), and
also the special care (Lk. 1:66), security and protection (Lk. 23:46; Jn. 10:29)
which God grants to all those who trust him. God’s hand indicates his wonder-
working power with which he accompanies the apostolic proclamation of the
gospel (Acts 4:30; 11:21) and is represented as operating “‘by the hand of an —
angel’ (Acts 7:35). It also indicates God’s hidden wisdom with which he leads his
people on earth through suffering (1 Pet. 5:6). Hand, finally, can be a periphrasis
149
HAND
for a hostile power, into whose control a man is delivered (esp. Matt. 17:22 par.
Mk. 9:31, Lk. 9:44, Matt. 26:45 par. Mk. 14:41; Acts 21:11), but from whose
hand he can also be set free (Acts 12:11; 2 Cor. 11:33).
3. cheir is frequently used in connection with the verb ekteino, to stretch out.
Jesus commanded a sick man to stretch out his hand (Matt. 12:13 par. Mk. 3:5,
Lk. 6:10). He stretched out his hand to — heal (Matt. 8:3 par. Mk. 1:41, Lk. 5:13;
cf. Acts 4:30). Stretching out the hand can be an orator’s gesture (Acts 26:1) and
a sign indicating the bystanders (Matt. 12:49). It can happen with hostile intent
(Lk. 22:53) or refer indirectly to a disciple’s death by crucifixion (Jn. 21:18).
F. Laubach
The Jewish (though not OT) practice of ceremonially washing the hands before
meals (Mk. 7:1—4) was condemned by Jesus as an instance of scrupulous obser-
vance of an outward ordinance of man, practised at the expense of neglecting the
word of God (wy. 6 ff.; cf. Matt. 15:8 ff.; Isa. 29:13) and failure to realize that
evil comes from the heart (Mk. 7:14—23; cf. Matt. 15:10-20). Mk. 7:3 contains the
word pygmé which the RSV deliberately omits on account of the uncertainty of its
meaning. Although there are variant readings in some MSS, it is supported by the
majority of early MSS. C. E. B. Cranfield suggests that the explanation is to be
sought in the Jewish custom of different sorts of ritual washing. Dipping up to the
wrist was less serious than plunging up to the wrist. pygmé is a dat. form of the
noun meaning “‘fist’’. The expression in Mk. pygmé nipsontai may refer to the for-
mer act, or perhaps to washing with a fistful of water. (Cf. The Gospel according to
Saint Mark, 1959, 233; and for further suggestions P. R. Weis, ““A Note on pygmeé,”
NTS 3, 1956-7, 233 ff.; — Baptism, Wash, art. nipto.) Pilate’s act of washing his
hands before the crowd (Matt. 27:24) was a public gesture disclaiming responsibility.
Although the crowds accepted responsibility for Jesus’ blood, the gesture was
equally empty, for moral responsibility cannot be disposed of by outward gestures.
The finger (daktylos [in the LXX chiefly for ’esba‘]) is mentioned in Matt. 23:4;
Mk. 7:33; Lk. 11:46; 16:24; Jn. 8:6, 8; 20:25, 27. The expression “finger of
God” (Lk. 11:20; cf. Exod. 8:19) is paralleled in Matt. 12:28 by — “Spirit of
God.” “In all likelihood it is Jesus’ own phrase by which he defines his mission in
terms of the Exodus. . . as he does elsewhere. See on 6:17—49; 9:10—17). The escha-
tological presence of the Spirit is the presence of the kingdom. See on 10:1-20”
(E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 1966, 165).
cheirotoned means to choose (originally elect by raising hands) (2 Cor. 8:19),
and appoint (Acts 14:23). cheiropoiétos, made by human hands, underlines the
distinction between God’s action and man’s (Mk. 14:58; Acts 7:78; 17:24; Eph.
2:11; Heb. 9:11, 24). C. Brown
EmitiOnul tac yeipac (epitithémi tas cheiras), to lay
hands on; ézi@ecic tHv xElp@v (epithesis t6n cheiron),
laying on of hands.
CL epithesis (from Plato on) means: (a) laying on, application (of things); (b)
setting upon, attack (only in the LXX, Aristeas, Philo and Josephus). The
phrase epithesis tén cheiron, the laying on of hands, occurs only in Philo and the
NT. On the other hand epitithémi tén cheira or tas cheiras, to lay the hand or hands
on someone or something, also occurs in Gk. inscriptions and in the LXX.
150
HAND
Miraculous healings, performed by means of the laying on of hands, are attri-
buted in Hel. literature to Asclepius, Zeus and to other gods and wise men (—>
Heal, art. iaomai; TDNT III, 196 ff.).
oT 1. Even though the substantival combination epithesis ton cheiron does not
occur in the LXX, it probably goes back to the corresponding verbal expres-
sion, epitithémi tas cheiras (Heb. samak yadayim) in the LXX which has two basic
associations in the LXX. Numerically speaking, by far the more important usage
of this verbal expression in the LXX is the one which describes how the sacrificer
laid his hand on the head of the sacrificial animal. The meaning of this action is
seen most clearly in the ritual for the great Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), where the
laying on of hands is not an act of blessing but is believed to be a real transfer-
ence of guilt to the scapegoat. To drive out the goat meant to drive out sin itself.
But in the case of the other forms of sacrifice which from the point of view of the
history of religions are less primitive, it is to be observed that sacrifice and laying
on of hands coincide (so in almost every chapter in Lev.). For to deny that foreign
divinities have any power over the people of Israel meant that they now have to
commit to Yahweh their evil and allow him to destroy it.
2. Alongside this, though more rare, is the laying on of hands as an act of bless-
ing (Genesis 48:18 ). It is no doubt closely related to the ritual of laying on of
hands on the occasion of a man’s installation in an office (Num. 27:18, 23, and
frequently in the Pent.). The laying on of hands means, therefore, if one compares
the two very different acts of removal of sin and blessing, that there passes to the
one on whom hands are laid the particular quality of the one who performs the act.
He passes on his special blessing or burdens the scapegoat with the burden which he
himself had carried.
3. The two passages which took on the greatest significance for Rab. Judaism
were those which dealt with Moses’ appointment of Joshua to be his successor
(Num. 27:15 ff.; Deut. 34:9). In the former passage, by means of the laying on of
hands Moses invested Joshua with his authority. In the latter he invested him with
his spirit of wisdom. Rab. Judaism saw here the obligatory model and the origin
of its own ordination practice, which was understood as the handing on of the
spirit of Moses from the present teacher to the pupil (cf. TDNT VI 962; IX 429;
SB I 807; SB II 648-55).
NT In the majority of passages in which it occurs in the NT (altogether 40 times)
epitithémi 1s connected with the laying on of hands. epithesis ton cheir6n only
appears 4 times.
1. The verbal expression epitithémi tas cheiras is used predominantly in the NT
in connection with miracles of healing (Matt. 9:18; Mk. 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:23;
Lk. 13:13; Acts 28:8), performed by Jesus and the apostles as signs that the mes-
sianic age had already dawned. The expression also appears in Matt. 19:13, 15 to
denote a gesture of blessing the children who were brought to Jesus. As the par.
in Mk. 10:16 shows, there is no thought of a magical means of blessing. The
gesture of blessing symbolizes, rather, the gracious offer of a share in the kingdom
of God made to those who are not of age, i.e. to such as approach God with the
attitude of children. (— Child, art. pais NT 2.)
151
HAND
Acts 8:17 ff.; 9:17; 19:6 belong in the context of the — baptism. The Holy
—> Spirit is given to those who are baptized and have the apostles’ hands laid on
them. This may be the idea behind | Tim. 5:22. But equally the laying on of hands
here could be a gesture accompanying the readmission to fellowship of a penitent
sinner or heretic. The possibility of ‘“‘ordination’”’ also cannot be excluded. Two
passages take us directly into the sphere of Jewish ordination: Acts 6:6 where the
seven Hellenists were appointed to serve in the daily distribution to their section
of the community, and Acts 13:3 where Paul and Barnabas are sent out. Here the
thought of authorizing and commissioning to a specific work predominates.
2. The substantival expression occurs once in connection with baptism (Acts
8:17 ff.). On another occasion it denotes one of the elementary doctrines of Christ
(Heb. 6:2). Twice (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6) it denotes the rite by which Timothy
was ordained. According to these two passages, Timothy had conferred upon him
through the laying on of hands by the elders or Paul the gift of grace for leading the
congregation, preaching the word and teaching or refuting false teachers. It is
surmised by those who on literary grounds deny the Pauline authorship of the
Pastoral Epistles that the church here, which dates from the beginning of the 2nd
cent., is using a historical fiction. Its aim was to give apostolic justification to its
understanding of ordination (the conferment of grace for office), which has de-
parted from the Pauline understanding of the free working of the Spirit.
3. It is striking that in every passage, where the laying on of hands appears in
connection with ordination or sending out for a particular service, it is always
carried out by people who at that moment possess different gifts. In Acts 6:6 the
laying on of hands is performed by the apostles; in Acts 13:3 by prophets and
teachers; in 1 Tim. 4:14 by the elders; and in 2 Tim. 1:6 by Paul. This suggests
that the NT does not yet recognize the power of ordination as being restricted to a
particular office, e.g. that of the apostles.
Reference must also be made to the close connection between the laying on of
hands and intercessory prayer. This indicates that there is no thought of the transfer
of a particular quality, necessary for office, from one office-bearer to another
involving the idea of succession. The idea that the gifts of grace are at men’s dis-
posal is sharply contradicted by Peter’s clash with Simon Magus (Acts 8:18 ff.).
It is God himself who equips his servants with his gifts and sends them out. This
happens through the prayer of the church. The laying on of hands bears witness to
the church’s conviction that their prayers which are founded on God’s promises
have been heard. H.-G. Schiitz
—> Apostle, — Bishop, — Serve
(a). Arndt, 106, 169, 736, 888; H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual
Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, 1969; J. G. Davies, He Ascended into Heaven
’ (Bampton Lectures, 1958), 1958; D. Daube, ““The Laying on of Hands” in The New Testament
and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956; B. S. Easton, “Jewish and Early Christian Ordination’’, Anglican
Theological Review, 5, 1922-23, 308-19; 6, 1923-24, 285-95; abridged in Early Christianity: The
Purpose of Acts and Other Papers, 1955, 135-43; A. Ehrhardt, “Jewish and Christian Ordina-
tion”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5, 1954, 125-38; reprinted in The Framework of the New
Testament Stories, 1964, 132-50; E. Ferguson, ‘“‘Laying on of Hands: Its Significance in Ordina-
tion” JTS New Series 26, 1975, 1-12; K. Grayston, ““The Significance of the Word Hand in the
New Testament’’, in Festschrift B. Rigaux, 1970, 479-87; W. Grundmann, dexios, TDNT II 37-—
40; D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, 1973; F. Hahn, The
152
HAND/HARD
Titles of Jesus in Christology, 1969, especially 129 ff.; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°;
G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, 1951, 223-31; E. Lohse, cheir etc., TDNT IX 424-38;
S. New, ““The Name, Baptism, and the Laying on of Hands’’, in F. J. Foakes—Jackson and K. Lake,
The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 1933, 121-40; W. D. McHardy, “‘Mark 7? — A Reference to the
Old Testament ?’’, ExpT 87, 1975-76, 119; J. Newman, Semikhah, 1950; J. K. Parratt, ‘‘The
Laying on of Hands in the New Testament”’, ExpT 80, 1968-69, 210-14; J. J. M. Roberts, ““The
Hand of Yahweh’’, VT 21, 1971, 244-51; H. Schlier, daktylos, TDNT II 20f.; K. L. Schmidt,
pygmé, TDNT III 915 ff.; M. H. Shepherd, Jr., “Hands, Laying on of”, /DB II 521 f.; H. P. Smith,
“The Laying on of Hands’, American Journal of Theology 17, 1913, 47-62; C. H. Turner, cheiro-
tonia, cheirothesia, epithesis cheiron, JTS 24, 1923, 496-504; P. R. Weis, ““A Note on pygmeé’’,
NTS 3, 1956-57, 233-36; J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, 1962.
(b). N. Adler, Taufe und Handauflegung, 1951; and ‘‘Die Handauflegung im Neuen Testament
bereits ein Bussritus? Zur Auslegung von | Tim. 5, 22’, Neutestamentliche Aufsatze, Festschrift
J. Schmid, 1963, 1 ff.; J. Behm, Die Handauflegung im Urchristentum, 1911; J. Coppens,
L’imposition des mains et les rites connexes dans le Nouveau Testament et dans I’ Eglise ancienne,
1925; J. Daniélou, ‘‘La Session a la droite du Pére,”’ in The Gospels Reconsidered: A Selection of
Papers read at the International Congress on the Four Gospels in 1957, 1960, 68-77; J. Galtier,
‘Imposition des mains’, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, VII, 1972, 1302-1425; E. Lohse,
Die Ordination im Spatjudentum und im Neuen Testament, 1951; U. Luck, Hand und Hand Gottes.
Ein Beitrag zur Grundlage und Geschichte des biblischen Gottesverstandnisses (dissertation,
Munster), 1959; R. Mayer and N. Adler, ‘“‘Handauflegung’’, L7K IV 1343 ff.; S. Morenz, H. D.
Wendland and W. Jannasch, ‘“‘Handauflegung’’, RGG? III 52 ff.; G. Révész, Die menschliche Hand,
1944; O. Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder, 1909; A. S. van der Woude, yad, THAT I 667-74.
Hard, Hardened
okdnpdc (skléros, hard, rough; oxAnpotne (sklérotés),
oe Chardness; okAnptvw@ (sklérynd), to be, become, hard;
ok hn pot payndog (sklérotrachélos), stiff-necked, obstinate; ak Ay poxa poia (skleéro-
kardia), hard-heartedness; mmwpow (poroo), harden, become hard; zmpwoic
(porosis), hardness; maybv@ (pachyno), thicken, make insensitive.
oxy pos
The concepts of being or making hard, firm, rigid and thick are expressed in the
NT by the word groups skléros, pdros (péros) and pachys. The meanings converge
with the result that substitutions take place in the course of the transmission of the
NT text.
CL 1. skléros (in secular Gk. from Hesiod on) means dry, hard, rough. From it is
formed the noun sk/érotés, hardness. The vb. skléryné was originally a medical
term (first attested in Hippocrates). In the active it means to harden; in the passive,
to grow hard. sklérotrachélos (attested in Aesop and the LXX) means stiff-necked,
stubborn, obdurate.
2. porod (from Hippocrates on) is derived from poros, tufa or tuff (porous stone),
and means to harden, to form a callus (when broken bones heal), and thus to
petrify, to become hard. The word is only used figuratively in the NT. The same is
true of the verbal noun porosis, hardening. In almost every NT passage where
porood and porosis occur, pérod and pérdsis appear as variants. péroO means
to make lame, to maim; and when used of the eyes, to blind. Correspondingly
pérosis means maiming, and then shortsightedness, blindness. This root is also
used figuratively and in this sense means virtually the same as porod. As pérod
153
HARD
occurs more frequently in literature, the substitution of the words in the process of
copying is easily explained. pdrod doubtless represents the original form of the text.
3. pachyno 1s derived from pachys, thick, fat (in secular Gk. from Aeschylus on).
It originally meant to thicken, to fatten; then by extension to make impervious
(to water). Hence figuratively it came to mean to make insensitive, and in the
passive, to be insensitive.
oT The most frequent Heb. equivalent for sk/éros and its derivatives is gasah.
hazaq and other vbs. are also used, but these word groups are rare. Harden-
ing, according to the OT understanding, results from the fact that men persist in
shutting themselves to God’s call and command. A state then arises in which a
man is no longer able to hear and in which he is irretrievably enslaved. Alterna-
tively, God makes the hardening final, so that the people affected by it cannot
escape from it.
1. In the oldest OT narratives it is always non-Israelites who are hardened. The
most important narrative is that of the hardening of Pharaoh (Exod. 4 ff.). After
every appeal by Moses and every plague we read, “Still Pharaoh’s heart was
hardened”’ (Exod. 7:13, 22; 8:15, etc.). It is God who hardens Pharaoh’s heart (in
passages attributed to the Elohistic strand). Whole peoples too are hardened by
God, e.g. the Canaanites: ‘‘For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts that
they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly
destroyed, and should receive no mercy” (Jos. 11:20). Non-Israelites were hardened,
therefore, only when they came into contact with Israel, for the hardening of the
peoples was one of the means God used to fulfil his purpose for Israel.
2. Not until the great prophets is — Israel also seen as a hardened people. This
is expressed most strongly in Isa. God’s word had come to the priests and prophets
in Jerusalem, but they did not want to listen. Hence, God’s word became a word of
judgment against them, ‘“‘that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken”
(Isa. 28:12 f.). On the occasion of his call Isaiah received the command, “‘Make the
heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with
their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and
be healed’”’ (Isa. 6:10). God’s judgment on his people is not that he no longer
speaks to them. Rather his word is still proclaimed with utter clarity. But because
the people hitherto have not wanted to listen, from now on they will be unable to.
The vineyard which did not want to bear fruit (Isa. 5:1-7) is now unable to,
because God has forbidden the clouds to rain on it. God’s judgment encompasses
the destruction of the people (Isa. 6:11).
3. This contention that it is God himself who mercilessly hardens Israel is an
extreme statement. The later prophets do not speak with the same severity. Jere-
miah spoke of hardening, but he no longer named God as its cause. For Jeremiah
the cause is the obstinacy of the people who give heed to the false prophets,
whereas for Isaiah the prophet himself is carrying out God’s commission. It is
interesting that the LXX softens Isa. 6 by transmitting the command to Isaiah in
the indicative: “‘for the heart of this people is stupefied; and their ears are dull of
hearing; and they have shut their eyes, that for a while they may not see with their
eyes; and hear with their ears; and understand with their hearts; and return that I
may heal them.”’
154
HARD
The decisive new element is the promise in the later period of God’s new —
covenant. Then Israel will hear and recognize the Lord (Jer. 31:33 f.), and men
will receive a new, no longer a hard, heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36:26 f.).
4. In the Wisdom Literature the righteous and the godless are constantly
contrasted. The latter are characterized in many passages as hardened (Prov. 28:14;
29:1). Here attention is directed more to the guilt occasioned by hardness. Harden-
ing is the continually mounting refusal on the part of man to listen to God’s
command. It is not, however, inevitable. There is room, therefore, for the appeal,
‘“O that today you would hearken to his voice! Harden not your hearts” (Ps. 95:8).
For God’s judgment takes place as a result of hardness. No longer is hardness
itself a judgment from God as in Isa.
NT All these words are comparatively rare in the NT. They occur throughout the
Synoptics (11 out of a total of 26 occurrences), a few times in Acts, in Paul
(porood and its derivatives, and sk/érotés), in Heb. (skléryno 4 times) and in Jude and
Jas. (skléros once in each).
1. (a) skléros is used in its metaphorical sense of things: anemon skléron, strong
rough winds (Jas. 3:4); of Jesus’ words, sk/éros estin ho logos houtos, “‘this is a hard
[unacceptable] saying’”’ (Jn. 6:60). God will punish the ungodly because of all the
hard things (some MSS add, words) which they have spoken against him (Jude 15
quoting Eth. Enoch. 1:9). It is also used of people: the kyrios, the master in the
parable of the talents, is described in Matt. 25:24 as skléros anthropos, a hard, i.e.,
hard-hearted man. sk/éros is used absolutely in Acts 26:14: “It is hard for you
[i.e. difficult; sk/éron soi] to kick against the goad.’ A few ancient MSS and ver-
sions also include this phrase in Acts 9:4.
(b) sklérotés occurs in Rom. 2:5 and describes a human characteristic. By their
hard and impenitent hearts the Jews are storing up for themselves the wrath of the
coming judgment, on account of their self-righteousness and impenitence.
(c) skléryno is used transitively with a human subject: ‘“‘Do not harden your
hearts” (Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7). The appeal of Ps. 95:8 is repeated three times; the
community must not forfeit God’s promise. With ‘“‘God”’ as subject the word
occurs In Rom. 9:18: “‘He hardens the heart of whomever he wills.’’ Exod. 4:21
(the hardening of Pharaoh) is doubtless in the background here. God punishes by
abandoning people to their sin (cf. Rom. 1:24, 26, 28).
Heb. 3:13 takes up the appeal of v. 8 in the passive, ‘“‘that none of you may be
hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” In Acts 19:9 it is said of the Jews in Ephesus
that some of them were “hardened” at Paul’s preaching in the synagogue and
openly abused his teaching.
(d) sklérotrachélos occurs only in Acts 7:51. In his speech Stephen calls the Jews
“‘stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,”’ like their fathers always
resisting the Holy Spirit, unwilling to listen to God and killing his prophets.
2. (a) poroo is used metaphorically in all five passages where it occurs. In Mk.
6:52 the word is used of the hardening of Jesus’ disciples. ‘““‘Their hearts were
hardened,” so that they still did not understand who the Lord was (cf. 8:17). In
Jn. 12:40 it refers to the Jews again at whose hand Jesus met with rejection. The
word occurs in a proof-text (Isa. 6:9 f.; while it does not follow the LXX, it uses
ies)
HaARD/HEAD
the indicative as in the LXX). The two Pauline passages also refer to the Jews: “‘the
rest [i.e. the non-elect] were hardened” (Rom. 11:7); and ‘“‘their minds were
hardened” (2 Cor. 3:14).
(b) Two passages also apply the verbal noun pdrosis to the Jews. Jesus is grieved
at their “hardness of heart” (Mk. 3:5; cf. Mk. 10:5 par. Matt. 19:8, sklérokardia).
Paul states in Rom. 11:25, “ta hardening has come upon Israel.” In Eph. 4:18 it is
said of the Gentiles, ‘‘they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the
life of God because of their hardness of heart.”
3. Both passages where pachyno occurs (Matt. 13:15; Acts 28:27) quote from
Isa. 6:9 f. (here the quotation is used as in the LXX).
4. All these words, including the adj. sk/éros, are used in an exclusively meta-
phorical and theological sense and denote the same idea: the reluctance of men to
respond to God. In the NT men who do not open themselves to the gospel are
described as hardened. The same can be said of Jews and Gentiles, and also of
Jesus’ disciples who did not understand the — cross to which they were to become
witnesses. The prophetic idea that God hardens men is taken over from the OT
(e.g. Rom. 11) without for a moment losing sight of man’s personal responsibility
(Rom. 2:5). Thus in the NT hardening also describes the inability to hear which
renders a man liable to judgment. This applies also to the appeals in Heb. These
are meaningful only because hardness is broken down with the promise of forgive-
ness and a new beginning (cf. 8:9 f.). With the gospel God also gives the ability to
understand it (cf. however Heb. 6:4 ff.).
God has “given up” men to their sin (Rom. 1:24). But in Christ he gives a new
opportunity of hearing through his Spirit; he fulfils the promises of the OT. Over
against hardening, the inability to receive the word of God, stands — faith, the
obedient reception of the word. The question whether, despite Christ’s coming,
the Jews will remain hardened, is grappled with by Paul in his exposition of God’s
plan of salvation in Rom. 9-11. U. Becker
—» Determine, — Elect, —- Heart, + Lead Astray, — Sin
(a). G. L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 1964, 116; G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and
Perseverance, 1958; and Sin, 1971; B. S. Childs, ““The Hardening of Pharaoh’, Exodus, 1974,
170-75; L. J. Kuyper, ““The Hardness of Heart according to Biblical Perspectives’’, S/T 27, 1974,
459-74; I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, 1969;
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Il, 1965; H. Raisanen, The Idea of Divine Hardening. A
Comparative Study of the Notion of Divine Hardening, Leading Astray, and Inciting to Evil in the
Bible and the Qur’an, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 25, 1972; K. L. Schmidt and
M. A. Schmidt, skléros etc., TDNT V 1028-31; E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1965, 253-65.
(b). J. Gnilka, Das Problem der Verstockung Israels nach den synoptischen Evangelien und der
Apostelgeschichte, 1961; F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament. Eine frém-
migkeitsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, BZAW 74, 1955; F. Hesse, R. Gyllenberg, J. Moltmann,
‘““Verstockung”’, RGG?® VI 1383 ff.; E. Jenni, ‘““Jesajas Berufung in der neueren Forschung’’, ThZ
15, 1959, 321 ff.; K. L. Schmidt, ‘““Die Verstockung des Menschen durch Gott: Eine lexikologische
und biblisch-theologische Studie”, ThZ 1, 1945, 1-17.
Head
— Kxedalp Kepadn (kephalé), head; avaxedadaidopuai (anakepha-
| 7 | laioomai), sum up, recapitulate.
156
HEAD
CL kephalé, head, attested from Homer on, is related to the Gothic word gibla
(Eng. gable) but also to Eng. head. Derivatives from it include kephalaion,
main point (Heb. 8:1), sum of money (Acts 22:28); kephalaiod, sum up, late Gk.
strike on the head (Mk. 12:4); late Gk. kephalis, little head (Heb. 10:7 “roll” of a
book) and anakephalaioomai (see below). In secular Gk. kephalé means:
1. The head of man or beast, the coping of a wall, the capital of a column etc.,
the source or mouth of a river, the beginning or end of a month, etc. In Plato the
“head of a speech” is its conclusion (~ Goal, art. telos).
2. What is decisive, superior. In Gk. anthropology the head takes precedence
over all other members; it is, or in it lies, the authoritative principle, the reason
(hégemonikon). If the emphasis is upon the idea of origin, kephalé takes on some
of the meanings of arché (— Beginning). But the head of a community is never
referred to as a kephalé (TDNT III 673).
3. kephalé also stands for the life of an individual. As early as Homer it was
used in a similar way to psyché (— Soul). Thus, curses which name the head are
directed against the whole person and his life.
oT 1. In the LXX kephalé most frequently translates the Heb. ré’s. Beside kephalé
numerous other equivalents for ré’s are to be found: e.g. frequently arché
(— beginning: Ps. 137[136]:6; Isa. 41:4); prototokos (— first; 1 Chr. 5:12), kephalé
has the primary meanings we know from cl. Gk.: the head of a man (Gen.
28:11), of a beast (Gen. 3:16), the top of a mountain (Gen. 8:5) or of a tower
(Gen. 11:4) etc.
2. The head is particularly important in the language of gesture. It was shaven
in times of grief (Ezek. 7:18). The man who was under a vow did not shave it
(Num. 6:5; cf. Acts 18:18). It was covered (2 Sam. 15:30) or strewn with ashes
(2 Sam. 13:19) as a sign of penitence.
({Ed.] Prov. 25:21 f. states: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and
if he is thirsty, given him water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire on his head,
and the LorD will reward you”’ (RSV). The thought is taken up in Rom. 12:20.
After urging believers not to avenge themselves, for ‘““Vengeance is mine, I will
repay, says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19; cf. Deut. 32:35; Lev. 19:18), Paul declares:
‘No, if your enemy is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty give him drink; for by doing
so you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but
overcome evil with good.”’ The imagery behind this thought is debated. It has been
suggested that it derives from an Egyptian penitential ritual in which live coals
were endured as an act of contrition (S. Morenz, ‘‘Feurige Kohlen auf dem Haupt,”’
TLZ 78, 1953, 187-92; cf. W. Klassen, “Coals of Fire: Sign of Repentance or
Revenge?”’, N7S 9, 1962-3, 337-50). Morenz suggests that while the rite was
probably confined to Egypt, the metaphor was more widely used (cf. W. McKane,
Proverbs, 1970, 592). R. B. Y. Scott also suggests ‘“‘A form of torture; but to
return good for evil will be more effective in overcoming enmity, and so the enemy”
(Proverbs, 1965, 156). Scott notes similar thoughts in Exod. 23:4 f.; Prov. 20:22;
24:17 f. D. Kidner comments: ‘“‘The coals of fire represent the pangs which are far
better felt now as shame than later as punishment (Ps. 140:10). Cf. Amenemope,
chapter 2:19 ff.” (Proverbs, 1964, 160, cf. 23). He sees the saying as representing the
climax of ideas in Prov. 24:11 f., 17 f., 29. In his use of the text Paul omits the
157
HEAD
thought of personal reward for the Christian. His concern is that the life of the
believer should be free from all thought of revenge, that the enemy might be
convicted (though not necessarily converted — for that is God’s work) by kindness,
and that the way to overcome evil is not to repay in kind (which only leads to
bondage to it) but to repay it with good. The repetition of Deut. 32:35 at Heb.
10:30 suggests that it may have had a firm place in early catechetical teaching (cf.
M. J. Dahood, CBQ 17, 1955, 19-24). The juxtaposition with Prov. 12:25 repre-
sents Paul’s gloss on it, and provides an introduction to Paul’s teaching on how
~both Jewish and Gentile believers should regard the governing authorities
(13:1).)
3. Via expressions like “per head”’ (Exod. 16:16, RSV “‘apiece’”’) and “‘head by
head’’ (Num. 1:2), the use of kephalé in the LXX was extended to cover the life of
the individual. The OT sees man in action as a unity, but in each case it singles out
that part of him which is significant. In this case it is the head as source of the life-
stream. The head can be used as the equivalent of the person and his whole exis-
tence (e.g. 2 Ki. 25:27; Ps. 3:3; Ezek. 9:10; 33:4; 1 Sam. 25:39; cf. Acts 18:6;
Matt. 27:25). In Isa. 43: 4 kephalé stands for nepES ‘and denotes the — life of each
individual within the people.
4. By comparison with the other nations Israel will be “the head and not the
tail’ (Deut. 28:13; cf. Isa. 9:14). Thus kephalé in the LXX can denote also the head,
i.e. the one who occupies a position of superiority in the community (cf. Jdg. 10:18;
1 Ki. 21:12, Codex A). But “‘this use does not have the further thought that those
ruled by the kephalé are in the relation to it of a s6ma”’ (H. Schlier, TDNT III 675).
The head of the statue (Dan. 2:31 f.) only represented one kingdom in and of
itself, and does not carry any implications about its relation to the body.
5. In Jewish literature ré’s is used like kephalé in the LXX sometimes in connec-
tion with Deut. 28:13 (e.g. Jub. 1:16). The usage does not extend beyond the
meanings already mentioned. The head, which the members obey, is a metaphor
for unity (Test. Zeb. 9). The word was also used to refer to Adam as the head of
created beings (Sl. Enoch 2:22), to the head of those who worship idols (Heb.
Enoch 5:6), to the head of the synagogue (the president, Sot. 7:7 f.). This use of
ro’s is continued without further development in the Qumran texts.
6. Philo’s use of kephalé was seminal. The Jogos (— word) is the head of the
universe which God has created, its source of life, overlord, ruler. ‘He stamps the
world like a seal, separates species and genera like one who cuts ... and by means
of the heavenly eikdn [— Image] gives them a part in God” (C. Colpe, RGG? V
343; > Knowledge, art. gindsko).
7. In contrast to near-eastern and Orphic mythology which saw the whole cosmos
encompassed in the head and body of the highest god (— Time, art. aidn), Philo
represented belief in God as the creator of the cosmos. In certain forms of gnosti-
cism (— Knowledge), however, the former belief returned and Aion, whose body
is the cosmos and from whom as primal man all men take their form, receives the
characteristics of the redeemer (sdtér; > Redemption, art. s6zo). He has this role
in gnostic mythological speculation on the basis of his cosmological rank and not
on that of any saving work in history. The gnostic use of kephalé very much
resembles that of arché. Above all kephalé serves to denote not only the unity of the
158
HEAD
body, but also the controlling influence over it. The post-Christian Odes of Solo-
mon speak of the head concept of the first man in a manner comparable with that
in which the NT speaks of Christ. ““For they have become my members and I their
head. Praise be to You, our Head, Jesus Christ!” (Od. Sol. 17). (On Hellenistic
and gnostic evidence see H. Schlier, TDNT III 676 ff.)
NT 1. In the NT, where kephalé appears 75 times, the word occurs primarily in its
basic meaning of the head of a man (Matt. 14:8), of an animal, or of demons
(Rev. 17:3). kephalé occurs by far the most frequently in Rev. (19 times) where it
refers to those human and animal forms who are characterized by the shape or the
ornament of their heads. The head bears the tokens of honour and dignity (Rev.
4:4; 19:12; etc.), but also those of shame (Rev. 13:1). In the passion narrative
Jesus’ head is frequently mentioned (Matt. 27:29 f., 37; Mk. 15:19, 29; Jn. 19:2,
30). The smiting of Jesus’ head stands in marked contrast with the anointing of
it (Matt. 26:7; Mk. 14:3; Lk. 7:46) and the promise to faithful disciples that not
a hair of their head shall perish (Matt. 10:30; Lk. 21:18; cf. 12:7). The head of
Jesus is also mentioned in the resurrection narratives (Jn. 20:7, 12). The head of
John the Baptist is mentioned in Matt. 14:8, 11 and Mk. 6:24-28. On the phrase
kephalé gonias, head of the corner Matt. 21:42 par. Mk. 12:10, Lk. 20:17; cf.
Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; quoting Ps. 118:22, — Rock.
2. The head is mentioned in the NT also in connection with the customs of
fasting and penitence (Matt. 6:17; Acts 18:18; Rev. 18:19). As we know from the
LXX the shaking of the head signifies that a claim and its consequences have been
rejected (Matt. 27:39). With the phrase, ‘““Your blood be upon your heads!”’ the
departing apostle placed upon the Corinthian Jews the responsibility for the rejec-
tion of the messiah (Acts 18:6; cf. on this point Matt. 27:25 which is also evidence
that kephalé stands for the individual as a whole). The numbering of the hairs of the
head (Matt. 10:30) and the saying that “not a hair of your head will perish” (Lk.
21:18) speak of God’s promise to preserve those who commit themselves into his
hands. In wanting to have his head washed (Jn. 13:9), Peter wanted his whole life
to be cleansed. Jesus prohibited swearing by one’s head. ““Whoever risks his head
for something in an oath speaks as if he had power over his own life” (T. Zahn on
Matt. 5:36). The rabbis refused to allow anyone to retract an oath by the life of the
head (San. 3:2). K. Munzer
3. 1 Cor. 11 :2-15 contains a discussion of reasons why women should be required
to veil the head during public worship. In Judaism women were always veiled in
public (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1969, 358 ff.). E. Kasemann
claims that Paul is here trying to introduce into the Corinthian church a custom
which was foreign to Greek women (New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 210;
cf. also SB III 427-34). The customs seem to have varied from place to place (cf. W.
Ramsay, The Cities of Paul, 1907, 202 ff.; A. Jaubert, “‘La voile des femmes (I Cor. xi.
2-16)” NTS 18, 1971-2, 424 ff.). But Paul’s teaching here may have been influenced
by the presence of Jews in Corinth who maintained Jewish practices in their syna-
gogue worship and who may well have looked with a critical eye on what was going on
in the church. Immediately before the present passage Paul has urged that no offence
be given to Jews, the Greeks or to the church (1 Cor. 10:32), and that the church
159
HEAD
should follow him in trying to please all men and in being imitators of Christ (1 Cor.
10:33-11:1). The underlying problem was one of freedom in the light of the new
and equal standing of the sexes before God. ‘“‘The Corinthian watch-word ‘free-
dom’, which, considered both in itself and in connection with the specific case at
issue, seems to be more enlightened than the Pauline reaction to it, suffers from the
basic defect of enthusiastic piety; it takes account of freedom exclusively as free-
dom from burdensome compulsion. The apostle, on the other hand, is concerned
here, as always, with the freedom which knows itself to be called to serve and it is
just this freedom which he sees threatened where enthusiasm is rattling at the doors
of the existing order and proclaiming its allegedly just claims in the name of the
Spirit” (E. Kasemann, op. cit., 211). Paul is concerned not only with freedom but
with order in society. For him the role and relationships of the sexes which are
determined by creation are not abolished by salvation. This must be reflected in
public worship (cf. A. Jaubert, op. cit., 419 f.). He advances the following argu-
ments for the subordinate role of women and for the veiling of the woman’s head
which results from it.
(a) The hierarchy of the order: God-Christ-man-woman in which each of the
first three members is the head of the following (v. 3). Here head is probably to be
understood not as “chief” or ‘ruler’ but as ‘“‘source” or “‘origin’’ (F. F. Bruce,
I and 2 Corinthians, 1971, 103; cf. S. Bedale, ““The Meaning of kephalé in the Pauline
Epistles’, JTS New Series 5, 1954, 211 ff.). The creation narrative of Gen. 2:21 ff.
assigns a priority to man (cf. also Eph. 5:22 ff.; Col. 3:18 f.; 1 Tim. 2:11 ff.). But
the Christian knows that Christ has a greater priority as the archetypal man (cf.
8:6; 15:46-49; Col. 1:16), and the head of Christ 1s God (cf. 3:23; 8:6). F. F.
Bruce points out that there is a transition from the sense of head in v. 3 to its
literal sense in vv. 4-6 and from now on there is an oscillation between the two
senses. He also notes that what Paul has in mind here when he speaks of covering
the head is a veil which conceals the whole head including the hair. (The present-
day Jewish practice of men wearing a hat in the synagogue appears to reverse the
practice here.) Paul argues that for a man to pray with his head covered is to
dishonour his head (v. 4, cf. v. 7), because it implies that he is abdicating the sover-
eignty and dignity given to him by the Creator. But for a woman to pray or pro-
phesy with her head unveiled dishonours her head (v. 5), for this is tantamount to a
denial of her relation to man in the ordinances of creation. It 1s just as dishonour-
able as if her head were shaven which was a commonly accepted sign of dishonour
(cf. the case of Bernice in Josephus, War 2, 313 f.; M. D. Hooker, “Authority on
her head: an examination of | Cor. xi. 10”, NTS 10, 1963-64, 410). Paul’s argument
at this point has two premises. The one is the propriety of covering the head in the
presence of a superior; the other is the constitutional relationship of man and
woman which gives a certain priority to the man. Given these two premises the
propriety of veiling the woman in worship (which of all times is the most solemn
occasion for recognizing the divine ordering of things) logically follows. However,
in a situation where the former premise is neither recognized nor understood, the
validity of the conclusion no longer has the same weight as it did in Paul’s day.
(b) The priority of man in the order of creation in relation to the glory of God
(vv. 7-9, 12). The argument is now developed in relation to the concept of — glory.
Gen. 1:26f. states that — man (Heb. adam; Gk. anthropos) was made in the
160
HEAD
—> image of God, i.e. male and female together. Here Paul speaks only of the male
(Gk. anér). Perhaps he is reading Gen. 2:18 ff. in the light of Gen. 1:26 f. On the
other hand, he also couples together here the concepts of image and glory in a way
which goes beyond the Gen. narratives. ““For a man ought not to cover his head,
since he is the image and the glory of God; but woman is the glory of man” (v. 7).
Elsewhere Paul argues that man has fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23;
cf. 1:21), and that the glory of God is revealed in the gospel in the face of Christ
(2 Cor. 4:4 ff.) who restores the image of God in man (Col. 3:10). In addition to
the priority of man in the created order and the significance of veiling, Paul here
has two further premises which are implied in his conclusion. On the one hand, the
glory of God should not be veiled in the presence of God, for this would be a
contradiction in terms. Hence, the man should not be veiled. On the other hand,
woman is the glory of man (for woman was made for man, cf. v. 9). Hence, the
glory of man should be veiled in the presence of God (cf. F. F. Bruce, op. cit., 105 f.).
Again it may be said that the practical application drawn from these premises
depends upon how far they are understood and recognized in a community.
(c) The reference to the angels (v. 10). Here the Gk. texts says: ‘“That is why the
woman ought to have authority [exousia] over the head because of the angels.”
The substitution of ‘“‘veil’’ (RSV) is an interpretative gloss which obscures the point.
The veil is a sign of the woman’s authority. In Christ she has an equal status with
men before God. M. D. Hooker (op. cit.) argues that the veil was a sign of this
new authority which was denied her in the synagogue. As a woman she may pray
or prophesy (v. 5), but she must maintain due regard for her place in the created
order. Whereas the man shows his authority by not being veiled, the woman shows
hers by wearing a veil. The wearing of the veil manifests both the liberty and the
restraint that belongs to the woman in Christ. The liberty (as in all things) derives
from freedom in Christ; the restraint (as elsewhere) derives from the ordering of
society which has divine sanction.
It seems unlikely that — angels are mentioned here because of possible sexual
attraction (cf. Jude 6 and a possible interpretation of Gen. 6:2; Tertullian, On the
Veiling of Virgins 7). F. F. Bruce sees the appeal to angels as an argument for
propriety in gatherings of the people of God because angels are guardians of the
created order (op. cit., 106; cf. G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers, 1956, 17-22).
In the Qumran texts angels were said to be present at meetings of the congregation
(1QSa 2:8 f.; cf. 1 QM 7:6). A. Jaubert, however, claims that there is no support
for regarding angels as guardians of order in meetings. She stresses the context of
worship here and the réle of angels in worship elsewhere. For angels are charged
with the task of transmitting prayers to God (Rev. 8:3). They are the sign of the
divine presence (Ps. 131 LXX). Angels enter communion with the congregation
(1 QM 12:8; 1 QH 3:19-23). Therefore no offence should be given them (1QSa
2:5-9; 1 QM 7:6; CD 15:15 ff.; cf. A. Jaubert, op. cit., 427). The major premise of
the argument is that one should not give offence, and in this particular case to the
angels. The minor premise which is implied is that the veil is a sign of a woman's
status and authority in the Christian community. Therefore women should be
veiled in worship. Again it may be said that, whilst the guiding principles for Paul’s
recommendation hold good, the continued application of it depends upon the
continued acceptance of all the premises of the argument. In a culture where the
161
HEAD
significance of veiling 1s no longer understood in the same way, the argument no
longer has the same force.
(d) The appeal to custom grounded tn the natural order (vv. 13-15). Paul shares
the view that it is natural for men to have their hair short, though it may be grown
longer on occasion in connection with a vow (Acts 18:18; cf. also Epictetus, 1, 16,
9-14 quoted by C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 256 f.).
The statement that the long hair of the woman is “her pride’, “‘given to her for a
covering” (v. 15) does not imply that if she has sufficient hair, she does not need to
be veiled. Rather, the veiling of the woman in worship is seen as consonant with
nature. The argument cannot be taken to imply scriptural sanction for insisting
that man today must have closely cropped hair. What might be regarded as long
hair in a male in twentieth-century western society might have passed for short hair
in first-century middle-eastern society. On the other hand, unkempt inordinately
long hair in a male is generally regarded as degrading (cf. v. 14). Paul’s view of the
woman’s hair as “her pride’? may also take up the thought that, just as in the
presence of God the glory of man must be veiled (see above (b)), so too must the
‘pride’ of the woman. In each case Paul uses the same word doxa. V. 16 concludes
the argument by stating that this is the practice recognized by Paul and the other
churches. The passage has been cited in support of the contention that women
must wear hats in worship today. If this application were valid, the argument would
support not the wearing of hats but veiling in the eastern sense. However, the above
discussion has shown that its force depends upon the common understanding of
certain premises which were valid in the context of Paul’s culture. Where these no
longer obtain, the conclusions also no longer obtain, even though the motivating
principle of maintaining the liberty of the spirit with due regard to the order of
nature and society still holds. C. Brown
_ 4, In Eph. 4 the head is contrasted with the — body (art. s6ma): Christ is the
head of his body (v. 15). The body is supplied from the head and grows because of
it (v. 16). To describe the relationship of the Lord to his people, the —~ church, Eph.
makes use of the concept of the primal man: the church is to grow eis andra
teleion, into the perfect or complete man (v. 13). In this picture, Christ is the
head, and as head he sustains the whole body. Thus, in v. 15 the head determines
the relationship of love and truth in the body of Christ, 1.e. the fellowship of those
who practise truth and through love grow up into him. The relationship of kephalé
to soma expresses the authority of Christ (cf. Col. 2:10) and the corresponding
subordination of the church. It expresses participation and dependence of the body
on the head for the gift of life. It also contains “‘the element of an eschatological
orientation of the Church”’ (H. Schlier, 7DNT III 680). The head is always the
heavenly goal of the body which cannot be attained except in a body sustained by
faith and revelation. Eph. 1:21 f. declares that all powers are now subject to Christ
who is “‘the head of all things for the church.” The arché, the principality which
previously was so important, is now one of the many subject to Christ. The applica-
tion to Christ of arché (RSV “beginning’’) in Col. 1:18 (where he is also said to be
‘the head of the body, the church’’) does not contradict this, for here the word
stands in polemic juxtaposition to the archai (v. 16). (— Beginning, art. arché.)
K. Munzer
162
HEAD/HEAL
5. The rare vb. anakephalaioomai, which is found in Aristotle but is more
common in late Gk. literature, means to bring something to a kephalaion, to sum
up, recapitulate. It is found in the OT only in Theod. and the Quinta to Ps. 71:20.
It is used in Rom. 13:9 of the individual commandments which are “summed up
in this word, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ In Eph. 1:10 it occurs
in the statement of God’s “‘plan for the fullness of time to recapitulate [anakepha-
laidsasthai| all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the
earth.”’ The RSV translation “unite” stresses the unity implied in the vb. as does
J. B. Lightfoot’s comment that it implies “‘the entire harmony of the universe,
which shall no longer contain alien and discordant elements, but of which all the
parts shall find their centre and bond of union in Christ” (Notes on the Epistles of
St. Paul, 1895, 322). The thought of unity has affinity with the use of the vb. in
Rom. and is one of the great themes of Eph. (cf. 2:14-22; 4:3 f.). But there may
also be the overtone of renewal which is in fact a condition of unity. Christ and his
people, both Jew and Gentile, comprise the “cone new man” (2:15; cf. 4:13).
Moreover, this affects the whole created order. In his body which represents the
pléréma (-—> Fullness), the heavenly domain of his presence, Christ draws all things
to himself, and fills all in all (2:22; cf. 1:10). The church is “‘the centre, the mid-
point from which Christ exercises his invisible lordship over the whole whole”’
(O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 19637, 229). The concept of
recapitulation (Lat. recapitulatio; Gk. anakephalaiosis) features in the thought of
Irenaeus (Haer. 5, 29, 2) and other church fathers (cf. H. Schlier, TDNT III 681 f.;
Lampe, 106). C. Brown
—> Body, — Church, — Flesh, — Fullness, — Hand
(a). N. Adler, ‘““Head’’, EBT I 355-60; S. Bedale, ‘“‘The Meaning of kephalé in the Pauline Epistles”,
JTS New Series 5, 1954, 211-15; and ‘“‘The Theology of the Church’’, in F. L. Cross, ed., Studies in
Ephesians, 1956, 64-75; R. W. Crabb, The kephalé Concept in the Pauline Tradition with Special
Emphasis on Colossians, Dissertation, San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1966 (microfilm); O.
Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1959; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New
Testament Christology, 1965; M. D. Hooker, ‘‘Authority on her head: an examination of | Cor. xi.
10”, NTS 10, 1963-64, 410 ff.; G. Howard, ‘“‘The Head/Body Metaphors of Ephesians’, N TS 20,
1973-74, 350-6; E. Kasemann, “‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’’, in Essays on New Testa-
ment Themes, 1964, 149-68; New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 410-2; E. Lohse, Colossians
and Philemon, 1971, 52 ff.; J. A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology, 1952;
H. Schlier, kephalé, anakephalaioomai, TDNT 111 673-82; W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘‘ 1 Corinthians 11: 2-
16 and Paul’s View Regarding Women”, JBL 94, 1975, 94-110.
(b). P. Benoit, “Corps, téte et plérGme dans les épitres de la captivité’’, RB 63, 1956, 5-44; P.
Brunner, ““‘Das Hirtenamt und die Frau’’, Lutherische Rundschau 8, 1959; H.-J. Gabathuler, Jesus
Christus, Haupt der Kirche — Haupt der Welt: Der Christushymnus Kolosser 1, 15-20 in der theolo-
gischen Forschung der letzten 130 Jahre, ATHAnt 45, 1965; A. Jaubert, ‘“‘La voile des femmes (1
Cor. xi. 2-16)”, NTS 18, 1971-72, 419-30; H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I/LI, revised by W. G.
Kummel, HNT 9, 1969°; E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, KEK 9, with
supplement by W. Schmauch, 1968'4; H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 1930.
Heal
When human well-being and good health are impaired, God is actively involved in
the work of restoration, and Christians have the responsibility of sharing in this
ministry. The idea of bringing about recovery from bodily or mental sickness is
163
HEAL
expressed most frequently by therapeuo (cf. Eng. “‘therapy’’), and sometimes by
iaomai. therapeuo originally carried the idea of attendance upon superiors, or of
cultic service (like thrésko, which has a related root). But significantly this idea is
very rare in the NT, where the whole direction and purpose of such service is
changed. Anyone or anything healed, 1.e. freed from infirmity and sickness, is
spoken of as hygiés. hygiainod, the related vb., is used for bodily healing only in
Lk., where it is synonymous with therapeud and iaomai. It appears principally in
the Pastoral Epistles in connection with sound — teaching.
[ Oepancioo | Jepaneve@ (therapeud), heal, cure; Gepdamav (therapon),
E paTtev@ | :
servant; Gepaneia (therapeia), service, treatment.
CL & oT In profane Greek therapeuod has the meaning to serve, to be in service to
(a superior); thus also to serve, in the sense of venerating the gods, 1.e. in cultic
worship, to care for (e.g. as a doctor), whence finally to cure, usually by medical
means. |
The LXX frequently uses therapdn for the Heb. ‘ebed, attendant, servant. The
use of the vb. seems rather imprecise, even haphazard: twice for yasab, to sit (Est.
2:19; 6:10); once for ‘abad (Isa. 54:17); once for halah (piel), to appease (Prov.
19:6); once for bagaS (piel), to seek (Prov. 29:26).
NT With regard to the incidence of therapeuo in the NT, it is significant (a) that
out of 43 occurrences, no less than 40 are found in the Synoptics and the Acts;
(b) that, except in one place (Acts 17:25), therapeuo has exclusively the meaning to
heal. This means that in the NT therapeud is never used in its profane sense to
serve (cf. therapeia Lk. 12:42, “household servants’; or therapon Heb. 3:5,
“servant’’). The cultic usage for the worship of God is found only in Acts 17:25,
where Paul concludes from Isa. 42:5 (cf. Acts 17:24 f.) that God as the Creator of
the world and the Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by
man and therefore cannot be “‘worshipped”’ in the sacrificial cult (cf. Acts 7:42 f.).
({F.F.B.] The emphasis of Acts 17:25 is better brought out in the NEB rendering:
“It is not because he lacks anything that he accepts service [therapeuetai| at men’s
hands.’’)
1. Only in Lk. 4:23 in the proverb “Physician, heal yourself’? and in 8:43 (the
woman with the issue of blood “‘could not be healed by anyone’’) does therapeuo
denote healing by ordinary medical means. In the rest of the passages therapeuo is
used to describe the miraculous healings wrought by Jesus and his disciples.
(a) In the Gospels the work of Jesus is presented in terms of teaching and
working — miracles (Matt. 4:23 f.; 9:35; Lk. 6:18 and passim). Healing plays an
essential part in Christ’s miraculous work, but the latter must be seen in the context
of his teaching if it is to be understood aright. This is especially clear in the com-
position of the Gospel of Matt., where the two great collections of Jesus’ — teach-
ing (chs. 5—7) and of his —> miracles (chs. 8—9) are enclosed between the two almost
identical verses Matt. 4:23 and 9:35 (Jesus “taught in their synagogues and preached
the gospel of the kingdom, and healed all manner of sickness and all manner of
disease among the people’, therapeuo being used in both places). This emphasizes
Christ’s twofold office of teaching and healing (cf. H. J. Held in G. Bornkamm, G.
Barth and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1963, 246).
164
HEAL
While Jesus again and again heals the sick (Matt. 4:24; 12:15; 14:14; 15:30 and
passim), this does not put him into the category of the Hel. theioi anthrdpoi (divine
men), who in their miraculous acts of healing demonstrated their divine abilities.
Rather, the Servant of the Lord is — fulfilling the OT prophecies by his healing
miracles (Matt. 8:16, 17; cf. Isa. 53:4). The healings do not prove Jesus to be the
Christ, but viewed against their OT background they are seen to be Christ’s act of
obedience and thus a necessary element in his messianic work. This conviction
lies behind the many summaries (Matt. 4:24; Mk. 1:34; 3:10 and passim) which
emphasize that all who turn to Jesus find healing — a further echo of the OT (cf.
Isa. 53). This is why he has power to heal on the — Sabbath (Matt. 12:10; Mk.
3:2; Lk. 6:7; 13:14). In taking up the cause of the helpless Jesus proves himself to
be the — Servant of God (Matt. 8:7; 19:2).
(b) In Mk. 6:5, 6 there is the remarkable statement that in Nazareth Jesus could
do no mighty work. It is quite clear from most of the detailed accounts of healing
that — faith on the part of those concerned is already present before they are
healed by Jesus (cf. Matt. 8:8—10, 13; 9:27 ff.; 15:21 ff.; Lk. 8:43 ff.; cf. Mk. 5:34
and passim). Thus after the disciples’ failure to heal the lunatic boy (Matt. 17:16),
the father confidently turned to Jesus for help, and his faith was vindicated, for the
lad was healed (v. 18). Healing is faith’s reward, because faith is confident that
even when men have done their utmost and failed, the power of God in Christ is
inexhaustible. Thus healing does not initiate faith but assumes it (cf. Mk. 6:5 f.).
It is not that faith is the power which effects the miracle; it is rather preparedness
for the miracle.
(c) Christ healed men not only of bodily infirmities but also of demon possession
(Matt. 8:16; Mk. 1:34; 3:10f.; Lk. 4:40 f. and passim), here too revealing his
messianic claims. Satanic powers are subject to his power and word, and by
exercising power over the demons through his word, he 1s utterly different from the
ordinary exorcists of his time. As he casts out — demons, we glimpse the splendour
of Christ the King.
(d) Jesus also gave his disciples a share in his healing power (Matt. 10:1, 8; Mk.
6:13; Lk. 9:1, 6). They entered into his work not only in the sense of teaching his
doctrine, but in the sense of being empowered for the same messianic works which
he himself performed. For this, implicit faith is required (Matt. 17:16 ff.), the faith
_ by which the early church experienced the enabling Christ in its midst (cf. Acts
5:16; 8: 7 and passim). In the healings wrought by the disciples the church was
given a token of the active presence of its exalted Lord.
2. To summarize: In the NT the stories of healing are not told in order to
‘prove’ the messiahship of Jesus by demonstrating his power over natural laws.
“The miracle does not consist in the breaking of the causal nexus of natural law.
This does not come within the purview of the NT. The real miracle is victory in
the conflict with forces which struggle for mastery over this cosmos. The NT
thus looks into the depths of world occurrence” (H. W. Beyer, TDNT III 131).
Although the healing miracles, in common with all the miracles in the Gospels, are
repeatedly given prominence as outworkings of the Lord’s power (cf. Matt. 14:14;
19:2, where therapeuein replaces didaskein), nevertheless they are not regarded as
having any importance in their own right.
F. Graber, D. Miller
165
HEAL
ae idopal (iaomai), to cure, to restore; iagic (iasis), healing;
| IGOLAl | : te ee ee
Sigua (iama), healing; iatpdc (iatros), physician.
CL iaomai (from Homer onwards), to cure, restore, is used in the literal sense as a
medical term, and also metaphorically and figuratively: to free from an evil,
e.g. ignorance (Sallust) or some intellectual shortcoming; to heal psychological
illnesses etc. Likewise the nouns iasis and iama, healing, and iatros, physician, are
used both literally and metaphorically.
1. The various types of medical treatment throughout human history can be
properly understood only when one is acquainted with the ideas which have been
held regarding the different causes of sickness (—~ weakness), i.e. what has to be
fought against in healing. Apart from external injuries, where the cause is obvious,
sicknesses are for primitive man not simply physiological phenomena, the causes
and nature of which can be investigated, and which can therefore possibly be cured.
Originally sicknesses were ascribed to attacks by external forces (by gods, demons, —
sin, — guilt, — magical powers such as a—>curse, the ban etc.). To bring about acure
a number of methods were employed: exorcisms (to cast out demons); various
magical practices (the earliest beginnings of medicine); influences based on sug-
gestion; or prayers and offerings, in an attempt to appease the deity. Both the
sickness and its cure, therefore, were believed to arise from the intervention of a
superior will, though this is not to say that the origins of rational medical treatment
are to be found only in magic and enchantment. As early as the 3rd cent. B.c. the
science of medicine reached its first flowering among the ancient Egyptians. But
the honour of having set medical science upon an empirical and rational basis
belongs above all to the Greeks (cf. F. Bichsel, TDNT III 195). Already from
Homer we learn of the high esteem enjoyed by physicians in general (cf. I/. 2, 514),
especially those of Egypt (cf. Od. 4, 220-233), though admittedly he had not reached
the point of distinguishing clearly between medicine and magic. The oath of
Hippocrates (born 460 B.c.) is a remarkable testimony to the fact that, as medicine
in Greece came into its own, there gradually arose a specific code of ethics among
physicians (for text and literature see F. Biichsel, TDNT III 196; C. F. H. Henry,
ed., Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics, 1973, 291).
2. It remains true, however, that in the ancient world no clear line of demarca-
tion can be drawn between rational and magical ideas of reality. In his attempts
to cope with life, the man of antiquity came face to face with an immense variety
of powers, so complex as to be generally beyond the grasp of our minds, which
think exclusively in scientific terms. It follows that the relationship between the
origins of medicine as a rational science, and “‘supernatural’’ healings attributed to
superior powers, is inextricably involved. Thus we constantly find that among
different peoples special healing deities were worshipped (in earlier Gk. times e.g.
Apollo, later Asclepius; in Egypt e.g. Imhotep; in the Assyrian—Babylonian world
Tammuz). Temple-like edifices were built to them and used as healing centres (e.g.
the celebrated Asclepieion of Cos or the temple of Epidauros), where priests acted
as physicians and ran what can only be described as a healing business. All kinds of
offerings were presented, not merely in order to obtain a cure but also as thanks-
giving for miraculous cures already obtained. In the ancient world there were
numerous accounts of miraculous healing, often embellished to the point of being
166
HEAL
grotesque. Anything was possible. We even read of tricks being played on the deity
in order to obtain a cure, whereupon the deity would avenge himself with a puni-
tive miracle.
Kings were originally chief priests as well, and as such had the gift of healing
(cf. the royal customs which still obtained in the Middle Ages, e.g. Shakespeare’s
Macbeth IV, 3, or Philip the Fair of France: ““The King touches you, God heals
you’’). It is therefore no surprise to read, e.g., that the Emperor Vespasian healed
the blind and lame by his touch and with the use of spittle (TDNT III 198).
F. Biichsel sums up the situation when he says that “‘the gods are doctors and
saviours both in a cosmic and universal sense and also in an inward sense. The
typically Greek thought form of analogy leads here to a particular conception of
divine rule in the world. The gods become mediators between Zeus and men, and
as such they dispense healing”’ (ibid.).
oT |. In the LXX iaomai stands frequently for the Heb. rapa’, to heal, cure. It is
characteristic of faith in Yahweh that he alone is the source of all healing (“‘I,
Yahweh, am your healer”, Exod. 15:26; cf. 2 Ki. 5:7). To turn to a physician (let
alone another deity) for healing could on occasion be unbelief, distrust of Yahweh,
and an offence against the First Commandment (2 Ki. 1; and 2 Chr. 16:12). As
sicknesses come from Yahweh himself, he is the only one who can bind up and
heal (Job 5:18). For the same reason the OT knows little of the distinction between
external ills with an obvious cause (injuries sustained through accident, in war,
from animals’ bites, etc.), and other ills arising from within (cf. CL above, 1). In
every aspect of his life man is dependent on Yahweh alone. This does not mean
that demons and other powers have nothing to do with sickness. Rather they are
thought of as being in God’s service (cf. Exod. 12:23; Hab. 3:5 and passim).
This view of sickness and healing as marks of Yahweh’s visitation or of his
renewed favour often brings a man — particularly the devout man — into grievous
inward conflict (cf. the Book of Job and the Psalms, e.g. Pss. 38; 51; and especially
88). This can lead to rebellion against Yahweh, when the malady is felt to be
undeserved (Ps. 73:21; Job 9:17 ff.). And yet the devout man turns in prayer,
lamentation and thanks to God alone as the only one who can grant him healing
(Ps. 30:3; 103:3; cf. Wis. 16:12).
In spite of this radical attitude to sickness and healing, there are some passages
which indicate the use of medical treatment (e.g. | Ki. 17:21; 2 Ki. 4:34; 5:13 ff;
20:7), though the means used here by the prophets are seldom “‘medical’’ as we
understand the word. These are miraculous cures, carried out in reliance upon the
healing power of Yahweh.
In the OT the — priest is not regarded as a healer. His function was restricted
to that of a medical officer of health who ascertained that healing had taken place
(Lev. 13 f.). The earlier books contain very few references to physicians (cf. Gen.
50:2; Isa. 3:7; Jer. 8:22). These probably go back to Egyptian or later to Greek
influences. This situation changed at a much later period (cf. especially Sir. 38).
But here too, even though the work of a physician is regarded in a positive light,
he is God’s servant in the strictest sense. It is God who appoints him and through
prayer grants him wisdom for his work (vv. | f.; 9-14). An important element in
the OT understanding of sickness and healing is the idea that bodily sickness is
167
HEAL
very closely connected with sin and is therefore a manifestation of God’s wrath
against specific transgressions (Ps. 32:1 ff.; 38:3 ff.; 39 f. and passim). Here healing
becomes a picture of forgiveness, of God’s mercy, of his nearness (Isa. 6:10;
Ps. 30:3; 41:5; 103:3 and passim). |
2. In Judaism, too, medicine was generally held in considerable suspicion,
although we do read of rabbis who were also physicians. Judaism shared the ideas
which were widespread in relation to miraculous healings. Incantations, invoca-
tions and other practices (e.g. the use of spittle in healing) still play a large part (cf.
SB I 627; If 15, 17; [IV 527 ff.). With few exceptions, the rabbis themselves do not
appear in tradition as miraculous healers. “‘Most closely related historically to the
NT tradition’ are perhaps ‘“‘the old biblical materials (Abraham as a miracle-
worker in the apocryphal Genesis 20:21 ff.) and the Rab. miracles stories of the
Tannaitic period (e.g. R. Hanina ben Dosa according to Ber. 34b)” (O. Michel
BHHW II 679; cf. Moore, Judaism, I, 177f.; II, 235 f.).
NT In the NT iaomai occurs 26 times, of which 20 are in the Synoptic Gospels and
Acts; iasis 3 times, all in Lk.; iatros 6 times, all in the Synoptic Gospels,
except Col. 4:14 [‘‘ Luke the beloved physician’’]; iama 3 times, all in | Cor. 12. It is
clear from these figures that, apart from iama, this word-group occurs chiefly in the
Synoptic Gospels and esp. in Lk. (20 times out of a total 38).
1. The use of iaomai corresponds in the Gospels and in Acts to that of —
therapeuo. Hence, the remarks made under therapeud on the theological assessment
of healing miracles apply here also. The cures wrought by Jesus and then by his
disciples are signs of the incoming — kingdom of God (Lk. 9:2, 11, 42; Acts 10:38
and passim) and are thus the fulfilment of OT prophecy (cf. Isa. 35:3-6; 61:1 f. etc.).
‘“‘For the Evangelist Jesus is the one upon whom God’s Spirit rests, and who brings
in the eschatological time of salvation; in his liberating and redeeming work he
fulfils God’s will, which has already been declared by the prophets . . . in Scripture.
A general amnesty for debtors and prisoners, as in the year of release, becomes a
picture of the ministry of Jesus’ (O. Michel, BHHW II 679 f.).
This is not to deny that the NT shares the view of sickness which was common
at that time (cf. Lk. 13:11; Acts 12:23 and passim). As we saw under CL and oT, the
miraculous cures wrought by Jesus are not without parallels in the extra-biblical
world. In the opinion of many scholars the deeds reported of Jesus and his disciples
are not always free from embellishments and accretions of later miraculous detail
(cf. Mk. 5:1 ff.; Lk. 22:51; Acts 12:23; 5:15 f. and passim; or the heightened
account in Mk. 5:21-43 par. Matt. 9:18—26, Lk. 8:40—56; Lk. 7:11 ff.; Jn. 11:1 ff.).
But even though the NT records of healing show all the familiar features (e.g. the
helplessness of physicians, Mk. 5:26 ff.; the instantaneous nature of the miracle, Lk.
8:47; the patient’s ability to carry his own mattress home, Jn. 5:8 ff., etc.), a com-
parison with the romantically embellished stories found e.g. in the Gospel of Thomas
or in the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles reveals a striking fact. The NT accounts
are simple and straightforward. They do not aim to glorify some miracle-worker of
the ancient world, or even miracles as such. In most cases, the original account of
what took place is still very much in mind, and such events are viewed in the light of
Christ’s message. Farce, magic and sensationalism are absent. The healings
wrought by Jesus are determined by his—» word and — faith (Matt. 8:8, 13;
168
HEAL
15:28; Lk. 7:7 and passim). They are therefore (for all their similarities) funda-
mentally different from the healings in the rest of the ancient world. Jesus also
breaks through the narrow Jewish doctrine of retribution (i.e. that every sickness
must be the result of a certain — sin; cf. Jn. 9:2 ff.), without thereby denying the
basic connection between sin and sickness (e.g. Jn. 5:13 f.; cf. Jas. 5:16). The focal
point of all the healings is not the miracle but the healer himself, whose authori-
tative preaching has brought in the dawn of the new age (cf. the repeated state-
ment in Lk. that Jesus healed all: Lk. 6:19; Acts 10:38). “In all the Gospels the
power of Jesus is described as an obvious fact, self-evident both to his disciples
and to his opponents. What then is meant by the express statement that a special
power came forth from him (Mk. 5:30 ff.; Lk. 6:19)? This idea, which has close
Hellenistic associations, is meant realistically and is clearly connected with a
certain view of the Spirit” (O. Michel, op. cit., 680 f.).
Even though our rational thinking finds certain difficulties in regard to healing
miracles, we should beware of resting content with merely psychological explana-
tions. With our modern historical approach we are in danger of missing the real
force of the language and of the claims which it makes. For as a rule the real point
of a miracle is not the miracle itself but what it reveals of Jesus. “‘In spite of every
analogy, the miraculous healings of Jesus thus occupy a unique position in religious
history. They are inseparably connected with the uniqueness of Jesus and with His
unparalleled sense of mission” (A. Oepke, 7 DNT III 213).
2. In 1 Cor. 12 the word iama, healing, occurs 3 times as Paul enumerates the
various spiritual gifts. All the apostles were given gifts of healing as well as being
commissioned to preach the gospel (therapeuo is used in Matt. 10:18; Mk. 6:13;
Lk. 9:1; iaomai in Lk. 9:2; see also Acts, e.g. 2:43). But Paul here makes it clear
that healing can also be carried out by individuals whom God has expressly
endowed with a spiritual gift for this purpose. The gift of healing is one function
among others, all of which are co-ordinated with one another in the church as the
body of Christ. F. Graber, D. Miiller
[omic byinc (hygiés), healthy, well; byiaivw (hygiaind), make
| well again, cure.
CL hygiés (from Homer onwards) means: (a) lit. healthy (in body), strong, active,
sound; (b) metaphorically of good understanding, sensible, shrewd, sober, of
good judgment. Likewise hygiain6d means to be healthy, to be of sound mind, to be
shrewd or sensible. From Aristotle onwards hygiaine was often used in the sense of
“farewell!”
In Gk. literature (as early as Homer and especially later in Gk. popular philoso-
phy) Aygiés or hygiaind (frequently in conjunction with Jogos) is commonly used
to describe an idea or opinion as judicious, sensible, i.e. ““healthy’’ as opposed to
being false or “‘sick” (cf. e.g. Plato, Phdr. 242c; Epictetus 1, 11, 28; 3, 9, 5; Philo,
Abr. 223; 275).
OT In the LXX hygiés and hygiaino (about 50 times) are used only in a direct sense
(e.g. Gen. 37:14; Isa. 38:21; cf. Lev. 13:10 ff. for mihyah, growth of new flesh.
Generally hygiaine stands for the Heb. Sa/ém, used as in later profane Gk. as a
169
HEAL
greeting in the sense, “Peace be to you” (1 Sam. 25:6; 2 Sam. 18:28; 20:9; also
Gen. 29:6; 43:27 f.; Exod. 4:18; cf. 2 Macc. 9:19 and passim).
NT Of the 23 passages in which hygiés or hygiainod are found in the NT, no less
than 12 are in the Gospels and 9 in the Pastoral Epistles. Otherwise the word
group is found in the rest of the NT only in Acts 4:10 and 3 Jn. 2. |
|. In the Gospels and Acts hygiés and hygiaino are used without exception in the
literal sense of healthy, well.
(a) Generally the well-being is the result of a healing miracle (~ miracle; cf.
therapeuo and iaomai) wrought by Jesus (Matt. 15:31; 12:13; Lk. 7:10; Jn. 5:9 ff.)
or the disciples (Acts 4:10). — Faith occasions the saving act and so the healing.
According to Mk. 5:25 ff., this faith was not always free from magical elements,
but the word of Jesus, ‘““Go in peace, and be healed [hygiés] of your disease’,
confirms even this unusual miracle.
In all these passages, however, hygiés and hygiaind do not denote merely a
physically healthy condition. Anyone healed through meeting Jesus is a person
healed in his entire being by the word of the messiah (Jn. 7:23), i.e. also saved from
his sin (cf. Lk. 5:21 ff.). In the healing of the lame, the blind and the deaf (Matt.
15:21; cf. Mk. 7:37; 8:23) the promise of God’s coming (Isa. 35:4 ff.) was ful-
filled. In these passages, therefore, good health is not the result of medical treat-
ment but indicates a more profound healing, i.e. it is a sign that the age of salvation
has dawned.
(b) As in the above passages, hygiainonta in Lk. 15:27 does not mean merely
physical well-being (cf. 15:24). Having returned from this period of alienation and
come home to his father’s house, the prodigal is re-instated to his original status as
son, i.e. he has now become well. In Jesus and his healing word man encounters
the Father running to meet him and is restored to full health. Thus when faced
with those who object to his mingling with the outcasts of society, Jesus justifies
his mission with the aphorism: “Those who are well [hygiainontes] have no need
of a physician, but those who are sick’’ (Lk. 5:31). It is quite possible that Jesus is
here adopting a popular saying in order to justify his behaviour and to show that
he was acting as the messiah (cf. Mk. 2:17, where the word used is ischyontes, the
strong). When Jesus called the Pharisees and scribes “‘those who are well’, he
may not have intended it to be taken ironically. In this case he was not disputing
their ““good health’, though it must now prove itself in a right attitude to the work
of God in Christ (cf. Lk. 15:28-32), lest it degenerate into self-righteousness and
is destroyed. ({Ed.] On the other hand an ironical meaning is a natural one in view
of what is said about the religious leaders elsewhere in Lk. [5:17, 21, 30, 33; 6:2, 7;
7:30, 36; 10:25-29; 11:37-54; 12:1; 13:33; 14:1 ff.; 15:2; 16:14; 17:20f.; 19:
39].) _
2. The metaphorical meaning is found in the Pastoral Epistles, where hygiaind
and hygiés are characteristic terms for “(to be) sound’. Thus Aygiainein (en) té
pistei, to be sound in the faith (Tit. 1:13; 2:2); hygiainousa didaskalia, sound
doctrine (1 Tim. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1); Aygiainontes logoi, the sound
words of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; cf. Jogos hygiés, Tit. 2:8). In this
usage the influence of Greek popular philosophy upon the Pastoral Epistles is felt
(see above CL). Such a usage is completely absent from the LXX. In the Pastoral
170
HEAL
Epistles, however, hygiaind, which is nowhere used in the rest of the NT in associa-
tion with “‘word”’ or “‘doctrine’’, should not be taken to imply that the message of
Christ simply has to be made acceptable to the intellect. Rather, problems such as
heresy are to be solved by an appeal to the fixed norms of Pauline doctrine (1 Tim.
1:6 ff.; 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3 f. and passim; cf. 1 Tim. 1:1 ff.; Tit. 1:1-3 etc.). “The
church uses doctrine as such to combat the ‘enthusiasm’ of the gnostics, and sound
doctrine, handed down in its purity, to combat their false doctrine” (W. Schmithals,
RGG?® V 145). This approach, however, reveals the change which has taken place
in the way the message is understood. Whereas in the earlier Pauline epistles the
gospel is viewed as something dynamic (cf. his dialectic of wisdom and foolishness),
the Pastoral Epistles see it as a fixed body of received doctrine which can be used
as a clear-cut standard to counter heresy. ([Ed.] This must not, however, be over-
stated, for in the same letter which made use of this dialectic Paul could also
claim to be handing on the tradition which he received as the basis of faith [1 Cor.
15:8 ff.; cf. 1:18 ff.].) In the Pastoral Epistles false doctrine is opposed not by
detailed specific refutation, but with the simple assertion that it does not conform
to the doctrinal tradition and so is not ‘“‘healthy”’ or ‘‘sound’’. Hence, to be “‘sound
in faith’ (Tit. 2:2) means to hold the received apostolic doctrine as normative and
binding.
The important place occupied by Aygiaind and hygiés in the Pastoral Epistles
has often figured largely in the debate as to the authorship of these epistles (cf. the
excursus on | Tim. 1:10 in M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles
[Hermeneia] 1974; and the survey by W. Kasch in EXL III, 79 f. On the question of
authorship see further C. Spica, Les Epitres Pastorales, 1947, xxi—ccviii; D. Guthrie,
The Pastoral Epistles, 1957, 11-53; J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 1963,
1-36.) D. Miiller
— Blind, + Body, ~ Deaf, Dumb, — Flesh, — Lame, — Leprosy, — Miracle,
— Weakness, Sickness, — Work
(a). P. E. Adolph, “Healing, Health’, ZPEB III 54-58; H. J. Blair, ‘“‘Spiritual Healing. An
Enquiry”, EQ 30, 1958, 147-51; C. J. Brim, Medicine in the Bible, 1936; E. Andrews, ‘‘Healing,
Gifts of’’, /DB II 548 f.; J. P. Baker, Salvation and Wholeness, 1973; H. W. Beyer, therapeia etc.,
TDNT Ill 128-32; T. W. Crafer, The Healing Miracles in the Book of Acts, 1939; F. N. Davey,
‘Healing in the New Testament’, in The Miracles and the Resurrection, SPCK Theological
Collections 3, 1964, 50-63; V. Edmunds and G. C. Scorer, Some Thoughts on Faith Healing, 1956;
H. W. Frost, Miraculous Healing, 1951; E. M. B. Green, The Meaning of Salvation, 1965, 218-25;
J. A. Hardon, “The Miracle Narratives in the Acts of the Apostles”, CBQ 16, 1954, 303-18; R. K.
Harrison, “‘Medicines of the Bible’, Canadian Association of Medical Students and Internes
Journal, 10, 1, 1951, 17-20; and ‘“‘Healing, Health’’, /DB II 541-48; K. Heim, Jesus the Lord,
1959; H. J. Held, ‘‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories’’, in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth
and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1960, 165-299; W. K. Hobart, The
Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882 (but on this subject see also A. Harnack, Luke the Physician,
1907; and H. J. Cadbury, Style and Literary Method of Luke, 1920); D. Johnson, Jn the Service
of Medicine, 1968; R. A. Lambourne, Community, Church and Healing, 1963; M. J. Langford,
“The Problem of the Meaning of ‘Miracle’”’, Religious Studies 7, 1971, 43-52; H. van der
Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, NovT Supplements 9, 1965; J. S. McEwen, “‘The Ministry of
Healing’’, S/T 7, 1954, 133-52; H. N. and A. L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 1952; F. Mussner,
The Miracles of Jesus: An Introduction, 1970; H. P. Newsholme, Health, Disease and Integration,
1929; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1, 272-79; A. Oepke, TDNT III 194-215; A.
Richardson, The Miracle Stories of the Gospels, 1941; A. Schlemmer, Faith and Medicine, 1957;
A. R. Short, The Bible and Modern Medicine, 1953; C. R. Smith, A Physician Examines the
171
HEAL/HEAR
Bible, 1950; R. Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle, 1970; M. F. Unger, ‘‘Divine Healing’’, Bibli-
otheca Sacra 128, 1971, 234-44; A. Vogtle, “The Miracles of Jesus against their Background’’,
in U. J. Schultz, ed., Jesus in His Time, 1971, 96-105; L. D. Weatherhead, Psychology, Religion
and Healing, revised ed. 1954; J. Wilkinson, ‘“‘A Study of Healing in the Gospel according to
John”, SJT 20, 1967, 442-61; “‘Healing in the Epistle of James”, SJT 24, 1971, 326-45; and “The
Mission Charge to the Twelve and Modern Medical, Missions’”’ SJT 27, 1974, 313-28. H. W.
Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 143-48.
(b). K. Beth, ‘‘Heilung’’, RGG? III 194 ff.; W. Beyer, Gibt es Heilungen von korperlicher Krankheit
durch Geisteskraft ?, 1921; H. Doebert, Das Charisma der Krankenheilung, 1960; A. Dupont-
Sommer, “‘Exorcisme et guérisons dans les écrits de Qoumran’’, Vetus Testament Supplements 7,
Congress Volume, 1959, 246 ff.; F. Fenner, Die Krankheit im Neuen Testament, 1930; H. Greeven,
Krankheit und Heilung, 1948; H. Haag, ed., Bibel-Lexikon, 1956, 963 f., 1724 ff.; A. Harnack,
‘‘Medizinisches in der altesten Kirchengeschichte”’, TU 8, 4, 1892; J. Hempel, “* ‘Ich bin der Herr
dein Arzt’ (Exod. 15, 26)”, TLZ 82, 1957, 809-26; ‘‘Heilung als Symbol und Wirklichkeit im bibli-
schen Schrifttum’’, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen Philosophisch-
historische Klasse, 1958, 3, 237-314; J. Hempel and O. Michel, ‘“‘Heilen”, BHHW II 678 ff.; P.
Humbert, “‘Maladie et médicine dans |’Ancien Testament”, Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie
Religieuses, 41, 1964, 1-29; W. Kasch, ‘‘Pastoralbriefe’’, EKL III 79 ff.; J. Leipoldt, Von Epidauros
bis Lourdes, 1957; J. Ott, ‘““Die Bezeichnung Christi als jatros in der urchristlichen Literatur”, Der
Katholik 90, 1910, 454 ff.; J. Scharbert, Der Schmerz im Alten Testament, 1955; F. J. Schierse,
‘*Hat Krankheit einen Sinn ?’’, Stimmen der Zeit 84, 1959, 241-55; W. Schmithals, ‘‘Pastoralbriefe’’,
RGG? V, 145.
Hear, Obey
The word hear embraces both physical hearing and the apprehension of something
with the mind. Similarly, the Gk. vb. akoué and the noun akoé, as used in the NT,
can have both meanings, though originally these words denoted only the former.
Various compounds are used to denote apprehension with the mind. eisakou6é and
epakouo stress attentive listening, while the emphatic forms hypakouo and hypakoé
(lit. hear beneath) mean to obey and obedience. The linguistic and conceptual
relationship between akouod and hypakouo recurs in Old and Middle Eng. in the
use of the same word for both hear and obey. It can still be traced in some modern
languages, e.g. Ger. héren and gehorchen. The former includes the latter, and in
some contexts can be substituted for it. Conversely, parakouod and parakoé (lit.
hear beside) denote inattentive hearing, missing, not hearing, and thus disobedience.
[dxoto akovw (akoud), hear, listen, attend, perceive by hearing;
axon (akoé), hearing, the ear, a thing heard, message,
teaching, report, rumour; axpoatyc¢ (akroatés), hearer; eigakov@ (eisakoud),
obey, pass. to be heard; éxaxovw (epakouo), listen to, hearken to; émax poaopal
(epakroaomai), listen attentively; 2a pakotw (parakou6), fail to hear, take no heed;
mapakoy (parakoé), disobedience; év@ti¢w (endtizo), pay attention to, hear.
CL 1. akoud (Homer on) means to hear and refers primarily to the perception of
sounds by the sense of hearing. The person or thing heard is in the acc.; the
person from whom something is heard is in the gen. or else is indicated by the
preps. apo, para or ek. An impersonal obj. can also be in the gen. Hearing, however,
covers not only sense perception but also the apprehension and acceptance by the
mind of the content of what is heard. This led to differences of linguistic usage
which are discussed below in connection with Heb. Sama‘ and which also occur in
secular Gk.
172
HEAR
The related noun akoé (attested from Homer on) means: (a) hearing, the sense
of hearing; (b) the act of hearing; (c) the organ of hearing, the ear; (d) the content
of hearing, the message.
2. Hearing plays a part in every religion. The general tendency of the Gk. and
Hel. world, however, was to stress the seeing of the divinity (cf. W. Michaelis,
horad, TDNT V 320 f.). It is seldom that one meets in the apocalyptic literature of
Hel. mysticism (Apuleius, Corpus Hermeticum, 2nd or 3rd cents. A.D.) hearing as a
means through which revelation has been received. On the other hand, the idea
that the gods hear and listen is not foreign to paganism. We read of the ears of the
gods, and the adj. epékoos, listening, answering, is applied to the divinity on many
Hel. inscriptions.
oT 1. In the LXX akouo or akoé stands consistently for Heb. sama‘. It shares the
shades of meaning of the Heb. vb. Here too the primary meaning is that of
sense perception (e.g. the hearing of a trumpet, 2 Sam. 15:10). However, appre-
hension is immediately involved as soon as one receives a statement, piece of news
or message (Gen. 14:14). Apprehension demands acceptance, listening (Gen. 4:23;
23:11), understanding (Gen. 11:7; 42:3), and attention to the thing heard (“‘Listen
to...” Gen. 3:17; 23:16; Exod. 24:7). Hence, Sama‘ acquired the meaning of
obey. sama‘ in this sense is often rendered in the LXX by the emphatic compounds
eisakouo, listen, obey (e.g. Gen. 42:21 f.; Exod. 6:12, 30), epakouod, listen (and
answer), obey (Jdg. 2:17; cf. 1 Macc. 10:38), and — hypakouo, obey. The noun
akoé (Heb. §*mi‘ah or Séma‘) denotes the act of hearing (Ps. 17[18]:44), but mostly
the content of a message (cf. Exod. 23:1; 1 Sam. 2:24; Isa. 53:1; Jer. 10:22). On
God’s hearing see 3 below.
2. (a) In biblical revelation hearing has a much greater significance than in the
Gk. or Hel. worlds. For God meets man in his word, and man therefore is charged
with hearing God’s word. This does not exclude God’s revelation in the visible
sphere; the mental process is not to be separated from the sense perception. Two
examples help to clarify this. God revealed himself to Moses in the burning thorn
bush (Exod. 3:1 ff.), and in the vision which constituted his call Isaiah saw Yahweh
in the temple surrounded by the seraphim singing their praises (Isa. 6:1 ff.). But
here, as in other cases of the visible revelation of God’s commission, it is connected
with the prophetic mission. It takes place through the word, and must be heard and
followed. Likewise, the visions which are frequently described in the prophetic
writings (e.g. Amos 7-9; Jer. 1:11 ff.) require interpretation. Here too seeing and
hearing are a unity. The prominence of hearing in the OT is demonstrated by the
frequency of the phrases, n°um YHWH (thus says the Lord) and way°hi d*bar
YHWH (the word of the Lord came). Readiness to hear on the part of those who
receive the revelation is expressed in 1 Sam. 3:10: “‘Speak, for thy servant hears”’
(cf. O. Procksch, leg6, TDNT IV 91-100).
(b) Moses, “with whom the Lord used to speak face to face’’ (Exod. 33:11),
lived in the memory of his people as the model bearer of the divine, verbal revela-
tion. The Decalogue (— Command) was given to Moses according to Exod. 20:1 ff.
and Deut. 5:6 ff. Deut. 5:1 is introduced by the solemn “Hear, O Israel’. This
5¢ma‘ yisr@’él also stands as an urgent warning before the command to love God
(Deut. 6:4 ff.). Alongside the warning however, we frequently find the complaint
173
HEAR
that Israel has not heard, but has rebelled. God has not given to Israel “‘a mind to
understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear’’ (Deut. 29:4).
The prophetic revelation presupposed that the content of God’s will was already
known (Mic. 6:8). As bearers of the divine revelation, the prophets warned the
people, the nations and even heaven and earth to hear God’s word which was
coming through themselves (Isa. 1:2, 10; Jer. 2:4; 7:2; 9:20 [MT 9:19]; Mic. 1:2).
But equally we hear them complaining that Israel had not heard the voice of its
God, nor was willing to do so (Hos. 9:17; Jer. 7:13; Ezek. 3:7). Thus the pre-
exilic prophets, in particular, became preachers of — judgment. God lets his
judgment fall on a people that will not hear; nor is he any longer willing to hear
this people (Isa. 1:15; cf. Ezek. 8:18). Part of this judgment was the hardening that
Isaiah was to bring upon the people. They were to be unreceptive to God’s revela-
tion: ‘““Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive”’
(Isa. 6:9 ff.). In the catastrophes which overtook Israel, culminating in the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, the post-exilic prophets saw God’s
judgment on the people for their unwillingness to hear (Zech. 7:8—14). The prayers
of confession of the returning exiles (Ezr. 9; Neh. 9) show that a wide circle of the
people shared this view.
Thus Israel became the people of the — law who wished to render the obedience
they owed to God by the painstaking fulfilment of his will down to the last detail.
For this reason the most important part of the tradition was the Torah, the Law,
contained in the Five Books of Moses. Here the strongest emphasis is given to the re-
lation between hearing and doing (Exod. 19:5, 8; Deut. 28:1; 30:11-14). As the
divinely commissioned bearers of revelation, the prophets stood beside the law at the
centre of religious faith. ‘“The law and the prophets”’ is in the NT a comprehensive
description of the OT writings. To hear them is the task of the pious Israelite (cf.
Matt. 22:40; Lk. 16:29). The prophetic writings particularly served to feed the
messianic hope. In later Judaism, especially in the apocalyptic literature connected
with the book of Daniel (2 Esd., Ad. Dan. etc.), the era of messianic salvation was
depicted in increasingly glorious colours (— Jesus Christ). The Qumran texts also
illustrate the strength of this hope.
(c) The tendency to listen to the law was strengthened in later Judaism by the
rise of the synagogues (—> Church, Synagogue), with their regular — Sabbath worship
alongside the sacrificial worship offered in the Jerusalem Temple. The synagogue
became the focal point of the Jewish communities beyond the borders of Palestine.
The recitation of the Shema (consisting of the extracts Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21;
Num. 15:37-41) had a fixed place in their worship. In addition the daily recitation
of the Shema was for the pious Jew an obligation of faith and witness. In principle
any suitably qualified member of the community was entitled to expound the law
in the synagogue services. Nevertheless, the formation of the class of scribes
(— Rabbis) is understandable. Their expositions of scripture were originally
handed down orally but later from the 2nd cent. A.D. they were fixed in writing in
the Mishnah and the Talmud (— Glossary of Technical Terms). Thus hearing
acquired even greater significance in Judaism, especially since in the rabbinic view
the time of revelation was over. Only one echo of revelation remained, the bat q6é/
(daughter of the voice), which God made use of from time to time, but which
possessed no binding doctrinal authority for the rabbis (SB I 125 ff.).
174
HEAR
3. Just as men hear God, God hears men. It is in this way that the living God
differs from idols which have ears but do not hear (Ps. 115; 135:17 etc.). Later
Judaism continued this judgment (Wis. 15:15). So the Psalmists pray, ‘Incline thy
ear to me, hear my words’ (Ps. 17:6; cf. 31:2; 86:1 etc.). And in the figurative |
sense the OT often speaks of the ears of God who hears what men say (Num. 12:2)
— the cry for help and also the grumbling of his people (Exod. 3:7; Num. 14:27).
Alongside akoué the LXX often uses the emphatic eisakouo (e.g. Exod. 16:7, 8, 9, 12).
Not only does God hear prayer, he also answers it. This too can be expressed
by sama‘ and akouod (Ps. 29:10 LXX). But in these cases we more often find the
LXX using the compounds eisakouo and epakouo. The latter is particularly frequent
in the language of prayer and also as a rendering of Heb. ‘dndh, to answer, grant a
request (cf. eisakouein for Heb. ‘dnah [e.g. Ps. 3:4; 19:1, 6, 9 LXX; Isa. 49:8].
enotizomai, pay attention to, hear, is derived from ous, ear. It is a biblical word-
formation on the basis of Heb. he’®zin (e.g. Ps. 5:1[2]; 38:12[39:13]), give ear to,
from the root ’zm in the hiph. Thus the OT contains a whole range of statements in
which the pious Israelite expressed his certainty that God hears and answers prayer.
It is put particularly beautifully in Ps. 94:9: ““He who planted the ear, does he not
hear?’ On the other hand, man’s guilt can step between God and man and make
God’s ear —> deaf, so that he does not hear (Isa. 59:1 f.).
NT 1. The NT usage of akouo follows essentially that of secular Gk. and the LXX.
We find it with the acc. in Matt. 7:24 (hear the word); with gen. in Matt. 2:9
and Mk. 14:64 (hear the king, hear blasphemy); with apo in 1 Jn. 1:5; with ek in
2 Cor. 12:6 (hear from him or me); with para in Jn. 8:40 (hear from God as
Creator).
The noun akoé denotes: (a) the sense of hearing (1 Cor. 12:17); (b) the act of
hearing (2 Pet. 2:8; also Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:2, 5, ex akoés pisteds, as the result
of hearing in faith, so T. Zahn, J. A. Bengel and A. Schlatter); (c) the ear, especially
in the plur. (e.g. Mk. 7:35; Acts 17:20); (d) in Matt. 4:24; 14:1 etc. akoé denotes
the news (about Jesus). The logos akoés (1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:2) is the word of
proclamation, the message. In the quotation from Isa. 53:1 LXX reproduced in
Rom. 10:16 akoé also means message. Hence the akoé pisteds (Rom. 10:17; Gal.
3:2, 5) is the apostolic message which has faith as its content and is spoken and
received as God’s word (1 Thess. 2:13). The intensive in the quotation from Isa.
6:9 in Matt. 13:14 is a Hebraism: akoé akousete, by hearing you will hear.
Of the compounds, eisakou6é is used of hearing (obeying) by men, 1 Cor. 14:21
(in dependence on Isa. 28:11; Deut. 1:43; on God’s hearing see below, 5). parakouo
(in secular Gk. from the 5th cent. B.c., rare in the LXX) means in Matt. 5:36 to
fail to hear, leave unheeded (cf. Isa. 65:11 LXX). In Matt. 18:17 it means to refuse
to hear, to be disobedient. The noun parakoé, disobedience, occurs once in Plato,
never in the LXX, and otherwise only in post-Christian usage. It refers in Rom.
5:19 to Adam’s disobedience to God; in 2 Cor. 10:6 to the Corinthians’ disobe-
dience to Paul, and in Heb. 2:2 to human disobedience to the word of God spoken
through angels. endtizomai has a similar meaning (cf. above oT 3), and occurs in
Acts 2:14 of human hearing (cf. RSV “give ear to’’). The rare word epakroaomai
(from Plato on, not in the LXX) means to listen to (Acts 16:25). The related noun
akroatés, listener (from the Sth cent. B.c.; also Isa. 3:3; Sir. 3:29 LXX) occurs in
175
HEAR
Rom. 2:13 and Jas. 1:22, 23, 25, where the hearer of the law (or of the word) is
contrasted with the doer.
2. (a) The many shades of meaning of akoud become apparent when we ask the
theological question how man hears the NT message. The content of this message
is —> Jesus Christ, the messiah promised under the old — covenant. To those who
believe in him are given the fullness of salvation and a new revelation which sur-
passes that of the OT. This revelation which has been manifested in him is per-
ceived not just through hearing but with all the senses (Jn. 1:14; 1 Jn. 1:1). Essen-
tially, it is a question of hearing and seeing (— See, art. horad). Jesus pronounced
a blessing on the eyes and ears of those who had become witnesses of the salvation
longed for by the pious of former generations (Matt. 13:16 f.; Lk. 10:23 f.). To
the disciples sent to him by the imprisoned Baptist Jesus said: ““Go and tell John
what you hear and see” (Matt. 11:4 par. Lk. 7:22). Alongside his words stand
Jesus’ mighty acts. On the mount of transfiguration Jesus’ disciples saw his hidden
glory and heard the voice saying to them: “Listen to him” (Matt. 17:5 par. Mk.
9:7, Lk. 9:35). The shepherds’ song of praise in the Christmas story, as well as the
confession of the apostles before the Sanhedrin, referred to what they had heard and
seen (Lk. 2:20; Acts 4:20).
(b) Not only Jesus’ earthly appearance but also the events of Easter and —
Pentecost are perceived by hearing and seeing. Paul’s crucial vision of Christ (1
Cor. 15:9) is amplified by Acts 22:14, 15. Paul was to be a witness of what he had
seen and heard. The gospels tell the same about the other disciples: seeing the risen
Christ is bound up with hearing the apostolic commission which Jesus gave to his
disciples (Matt. 28:18 ff.; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:46 ff.; Jn. 20:21; Acts 1:8). The
events of Pentecost whose far-reaching effects in the Christian community we see
in | Cor. 12-14 were perceived originally through seeing and hearing (Acts 2:33).
Paul’s revelations and visions, mentioned in 2 Cor. 12:1 ff., are also related to this
event. In a trance the apostle heard “‘things that cannot be told, which man may
not utter’’ (v. 4). Hearing also plays an important part in the visions of Rev. (Rev.
1:10; 5:11, 13 etc.). On the other hand, the mystery of our salvation is un-
fathomable; what God has prepared for those who love him no eye has seen and
no ear heard nor any human heart conceived (1 Cor. 2:9).
(c) The message of Christ is grounded in a crucial revelatory event. The connec-
tion with OT revelation is preserved: the gospel has been proclaimed in advance
through the prophets in holy scripture (Rom. 1:2). For the receipt of the Christian
message faith is required. But faith presupposes hearing, and this in turn rests on
preaching (Rom. 10:14 ff.; cf. Ps. 19:4; Deut. 32:21; Isa. 65:1 f.). On the other
hand, as Jn. 20:29 implies, seeing is not a necessary condition for faith.
(d) The NT does not distinguish between Jesus’ word and that of the — apostles
in the sense that “he who hears you hears me’”’ (Lk. 10:16; cf. Matt. 10:40; Jn.
13:20; Gal. 4:14; and also Mk. 9:37; Matt. 18:5; Lk. 9:48). The apostles are
fully authorized witnesses of Jesus. The word which Jesus spoke has been reliably
handed on by those who heard it (Heb. 2:3). To hear the message is to hear Christ
and to hear the word of truth (Eph. 1:13; 4:20 f.) or the word of God (Acts 13:7,
44 etc.). Where this hearing leads to faith, — baptism is the natural consequence
(Acts 16:32 f.; 18:8; 19:5).
3. We also find in the NT the OT connection of hearing with doing. In the
176
HEAR
Sermon on the Mount Jesus appears as the expounder of the will of God revealed in
the law. His word is more than the word which was spoken to the men of old (Matt.
5:21). In his teaching the authority given to him is expressed. It is an authority
which marks his essential difference from the scribes (Matt. 7:28 ff.; Mk. 1:22).
Therefore, in the parable which concludes the Sermon on the Mount the Lord
compares the man who hears and does his word with a man who builds his house
on rock (Matt. 7:24 ff.). In Lk. 11:28 Jesus pronounces a blessing on those who
~ hear and keep (phylassein, — Guard) his word. Jn. 10:16, 27 refer to the sheep
who hear Jesus’ voice and follow it. In Rom. 2:13 Paul contrasts the doers of the
law with the hearers (akroatai). The mere hearers are unbelieving Jews, who do not
let the law point them to Christ; the doers, according to the context, are believing
pagans who demonstrate that the works of the law are written in their hearts
(2:14 f.; cf. Jer. 31:33). Similarly in Jas. 1:22 f. the doers of the word are contrasted
with the hearers. For the NT understands — faith not merely as hearing but as
obeying (— hypakouo, hypakoé). Doing the will of God, therefore, can only come
about from this fundamental attitude of obedience. |
({Ed.] In Mk. 12:29 f. Jesus cites the Shema (Heb. Sma‘, ‘‘Hear’’) or creed of
Israel recited daily by the pious Jew which consisted of Deut. 6:4-9; 11 :13-21;
Num. 15:37-41. The passages themselves declare that the Israelite was to be in daily,
constant remembrance of his obligation to love God with his whole being. The
words quoted by Jesus are: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one;
and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’’ The quotation largely follows
the LXX, though ischys (strength) is substituted for dynamis (power) and the Heb.
text has /ébab (heart) which is paraphrased in Mk. by two nouns kardia (heart) and
dianoia (mind). Jesus quoted the Shema in response to a question by a scribe:
“Which commandment is the first of all?’? (Mk. 12:28). Matt. 12:24-37 gives a
parallel account of the same incident, though omitting Deut. 6:4. Moreover, ‘n
both accounts Jesus immediately added of his own accord a second commandment
which was not in the Shema but drawn from Lev. 19:18: ‘““The second is this, “You
shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater
than these” (Mk. 12:31; cf. Matt. 22:39 which adds “Gn these two commandments
depend all the law and the prophets’”’ [v. 40]). Lk. 10: 25-40 also contains a discus-
sion of the two great commandments which also brings together Deut. 6:5 and
Lev. 19:18. But there are certain significant differences: the occasion is different;
in Matt. and Mk. it is Jesus who brings the two OT passages together in response to
the scribes’ question, whereas in Lk. it is a lawyer in response to Jesus’ question;
in Matt. and Mk. the centre of interest is the summary of the law, whereas in Lk.
it is the practical outworking of the law expressed in the parable of the Good
Samaritan that is the centre of interest. Such considerations have led T. W. Manson,
The Sayings of Jesus, 1949, 259 f., and C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to
Saint Mark, 1959, 376, to conclude that the two accounts are not parallel or doublets
but refer to different occasions. On the debate about the great commandment
—> Command, art. entolé; —> Large, art. megas; — Love.)
4. (a) Hearing the word does not always lead to faith, i.e. to the acceptance of the
word of God (Mk. 4:16; Lk. 8:13). Understanding must be added to hearing if the
sown seed of the word is to bear fruit (Matt. 13:23; 15:10). The contrary attitude
177
HEAR
which does not understand the word heard and will not accept it results eventually
in hardening (—> Hard). Therefore we find repeatedly in the NT, especially with
respect to the Jewish nation, references to the sentence of hardening pronounced in
Isa. 6:9 ff. (cf. Matt. 13:13 ff. par. Mk. 4:12, Lk. 8:10; Jn. 12:40; Acts 28:27;
Rom. 11:8). In Jn. the Jews are plainly told that such hearing is in reality no
hearing (Jn. 5:37; 8:43). This is what Stephen meant when he described the judges
at his trial as “‘uncircumcised in heart and ears’, and their subsequent behaviour
bore out the accusation (Acts 7:51, 57). Even Jesus’ disciples were not protected
against failure to understand and hear (Mk. 8:17f.). Similarly in Heb. believers
are urgently warned, with reference to Ps. 95:8, against becoming hardened (Heb.
3:7-11; 4:3-11).
A contrast to this hardening is presented by the receptivity of those whose ears
God has opened (Isa. 50:5) and who keep the word in a pure and good heart (Lk.
8:15). It is only to this kind of hearing that the mystery of the kingdom of God is
revealed (Matt. 13:11 par. Mk. 4:11, Lk. 8:10). But although such hearing and
understanding are God’s gift, human activity is by no means excluded. We see this
in the numerous and varied calls for attention: ‘““He who has ears to hear, let him
hear” (Matt. 11:15; 13:9 par. Mk. 4:9, Lk. 8:8); ““Hear and understand”’ (Matt.
15:10); ‘“Take heed what you hear’ (Mk. 4:24); ‘“‘He who has an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit says to the churches”’ (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).
(b) Jn. 5:25, 28 deals with hearing at the time of consummation; the dead in
their graves will hear the voice of the Son of God, awakening some to the resurrec-
tion of life and others to judgment. The raising of Lazarus, whom Jesus called out
of his grave with a loud voice (Jn. 11:43), is the anticipation of this final event.
5. Less is said in the NT about God’s hearing than in the OT. The ears of God
are mentioned twice in references to OT passages: Jas. 5:4, cf. Isa. 5:9; and | Pet.
3:12, cf. Ps. 34:16. Rev. 9:20 takes the statement that idols do not hear from the
OT. But God hears those who are pious and do his will (Jn. 9:31). Believers may
be confident that God hears their prayers when they are in accordance with his will
(1 Jn. 5:14). Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:34 quoting Exod. 3:7) refers to Israel’s being
heard in Egypt. epakouod occurs in the NT only in the quotation from the LXX
of Isa. 49:8 (2 Cor. 6:2). eisakouo is used in the NT in the sense of to hear and
answer only in the pass. In Lk. 1:13 and Acts 10:31 it refers to the hearing of the
prayers of Zechariah and Cornelius. In Matt. 6:7 Jesus criticizes those who like the
Gentiles hope to succeed in making their prayers heard by the multiplication of
words. Heb. 5:7 deals with the hearing of Jesus’ prayers. On several occasions
Jesus expressed the certainty that God hears prayer (Matt. 7:7-12; Lk. 11:5—13;
Jn. 16:23 f.). Heb. 5:7f. speaks of the prayers Jesus offered “‘in the days of his
flesh ... with loud cries and tears” (referring to Gethsemane, cf. Matt. 26:36—46
par. Mk. 14:32-42, Lk. 22:40-46), adding that Jesus “‘was heard for his godly fear’.
Heb. sees the answer to these prayers in Jesus’ exaltation as “‘the source of salvation
to all who obey him’’ as high priest after the order of — Melchizedek (vv. 9 f.).
This confirms the assurance, expressed in the story of Lazarus, that God always
heard and answered Jesus (Jn. 11:41). Correspondingly, Jesus always heard God
as his Father, and as mediator passed on the revelation which he had heard from
his Father (Jn. 8:26, 40; 15:15). Christ’s relationship with his Father has its
deepest roots in this mutual hearing. W. Mundle
178
HEAR
[ bmaxoio braKkovw@ (hypakoud), listen, obey; bxaKkoy (hypakoée),
pai | obedience; banKooc (hypékoos), obedient.
CL & OT The vb. hypakoud, to listen to, answer, obey (which is derived from akoud)
was used in secular Gk. from Homer on with the dat. of the person or thing,
and also (as in the LXX) with the gen. of the person. The specialized meaning to
open (to answer a request for entrance) occurs in Xenophon, Plato and other
writers. The noun hypakoé, obedience, is rare and appeared late in secular Gk. (6th
cent. A.D.). The adj. hypékoos, obedient, is attested from the 5th cent. B.c. The
LXX uses hypakouo mostly to render Heb. sama‘. Obedience is shown to men (Gen.
16:2; 22:18), to wisdom (Sir. 4:15; 24:22), and to God (e.g. Jer. 3:13, 25). In Isa.
50:2; 66:4 hypakouo translates Heb. ‘Gnadh, answer. In Isa. 65:24 (with the v./.
ek-) it denotes God’s answer to human crying. The noun hypakoé also means an
answer (2 Sam. 22:36, the only instance in the LXX). The adj. hypékoos, obedient
is used in Deut. 20:11 of subject peoples, and in Prov. 4:3; 13:1 of ason’s obedience
to his father.
NT 1. In Acts 12:13 hypakoud means to open in the sense of “‘answering the door’’.
Elsewhere the word group (vb. 21 times, noun 15, most frequently in Paul)
denotes obedience. The pattern of this obedience is Jesus Christ of whom it is said
that he was obedient unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:5, 8). Through his obedience,
which stands in contrast to Adam’s disobedience, “‘the many” have been made
righteous (Rom. 5:19). Heb. has a similar thought. Through his suffering Jesus
learned obedience; thus he has become the source of eternal salvation to those
who obey him (5:8 f.). His obedience to his Father does not exclude his being the
Lord whom the demonic powers and the forces of nature obey (Mk. 1:27; 4:41
par. Matt. 8:27, Lk. 8:25).
The apostle Paul, on the other hand, sought to bring every thought captive in
obedience to Christ; Christ is the highest authority over human reason (2 Cor.
10:5). The obedience we render to Christ 1s the obedience of faith. As an apostle
to whom has been committed the preaching of the glad good news Paul made it his
aim to establish this obedience among the nations (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). He has this
obedience in view in Rom. 15:18 and 16:19. It includes submission to the apostle
through whom Christ speaks (2 Cor. 7:5; 13:3; 10:5 f.;.Phlm. 15). It is obedience
to the preaching which brings righteousness (Rom. 6:16 f.), and to the truth (1 Pet.
1:22). 1 Pet. 1:2 and 14 also refer to this obedience: Christians are “‘children of
obedience’’, because this obedience must embrace their whole lives.
2. The use of the noun corresponds to that of the vb. Apart from Phil. 2:8, where
it refers to Christ, the adj. hypékoos also occurs in 2 Cor. 2:9 and Acts 7:39. Paul
found in the Philippians (Phil. 2:12) the obedient attitude which he had expected
from the Corinthians (2 Cor. 2:9). He had to warn the Thessalonians to have
nothing to do with those who would not obey the apostolic instructions (2 Thess.
3:14). Besides those who obey the message of faith (Acts 6:7) there are those who
refuse to obey the gospel (Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8). Beneath all this lies the
understanding of faith as an act of obedience. Moreover, obedience to Christ
cannot be separated from obedience to his messengers and to the message they
proclaim. Such obedience must work itself out in the life of the Christian. Chris-
tians are hindered by obeying the sinful passions of the body (Rom. 6:12). From
179
HEAR/HEART
obedience to the Lord it follows that one must submit willingly to earthly authori-
ties, parents and masters; and these too must of course acknowledge the Lord
Christ as the highest authority (Eph. 6:1-9; Col. 3:18—-20). As an example and a
warning from the OT, Acts 7:39 mentions the Israelites who refused obedience to
Moses (Num. 14:3 f.). In contrast, Heb. 11:8 names Abraham as an example of
believing obedience (cf. Gen. 12:1-—8). W. Mundle
—> Command, — Disciple, — Faith, ~ Law, — See, — Word
(a). D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 1959°; R. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, 1934, 53-75;
Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 314 ff.; D. Daube, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity, 1972;
C. H. Dodd, Gospel and Law, 1951; J. Horst, ous, TDNT V 543-59; G. Kittel, akouo, TDNT I 216—-
25; R. N. Longenecker, ‘“‘The Obedience of Christ in the Theology of the Early Church’’, in R.
Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope (Leon Morris Festschrift), 1974, 142-52; W. Michaelis, horad
TDNTV 315-82; P. S. Minear, The Obedience of Faith, SBT Second Series 19, 1971; H. R.
Moehring, “The Verb akouein in Acts 9, 7 and 12, 9”, NovT3, 1959, 80 ff.; C. F. D. Moule,
“Obligation in the Ethic of Paul’’, in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr, eds.,
Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, 1967, 389-406; O. Procksch,
legd, TDNT IV 91 ff.; R. Schnakenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 1965; A.
Stéger, ““Obedience’’, EBT II 616-20.
(b). H. von Campenhausen, ‘“‘Recht und Gehorsam in der Altesten Kirche’’, TABI 20, 1941, 279 ff. ;
R. Deichgraber, ‘“Gehorsam und Gehorchen in der Verkiindigung Jesu’, ZNW 52, 1961, 119 ff.;
E. von Dobschiitz, ‘Die fiinf Sinne im Neuen Testament’’, JBL 48, 1929, 378 ff.; J. Gnilka, “Zur
Theologie des Horens nach den Aussagen des Neuen Testaments’’, Bibel und Leben 2, 1961, 71 ff.;
S. Gross, ‘‘Der Gehorsam Christi’, Geist und Leben 29, 1956, 2-11; R. Gyllenberg, ‘‘Glaube und
Gehorsam”’, ZSTh 4, 1937, 547 ff.; E. Kamlah, “‘hypotassesthai in den neutestamentlichen ‘Haus-
tafeln’’’, in O. BGcher and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas. Festschrift fiir Gustav Stahlin,
1970, 237-44; J. Kaufmann, Der Begriff des Hoérens im Johannesevangelium, Dissertation,
Gregorian University, Rome, 1969-70; O. Kuss, ‘“‘Der Begriff des Glaubens im Neuen Testament’’,
ThG 27, 1935, 695 ff.; K. Lammerts, Hoéren, Sehen und Glauben im Neuen Testament, 1966; W.
Mundle, Der Glaubensbegriff des Paulus, 1932, 29 ff.; K. H. Schelkle, Die Passion Jesu in der
Verkiindigung des Neuen Testaments, 1949; A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 1927*,
611 f.; Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 1935, 316f.
Heart
[kapdia Kapota (kardia), heart; kapdloyywotne (kardiognosteés),
P knower of hearts; oxAnpoxapoia (sklérokardia), hard-
ness of heart.
CL kardia was used in secular Gk. in literal and metaphorical senses. On the one
hand, it denoted the heart as an organ of the body and the centre of physical
life (particularly in Aristotle). On the other hand, it was regarded as the seat of the
emotions and the source of spiritual life in general. Used in specific senses with
reference to nature, it meant the pith of wood and the seed of plants. kardia also
had the general sense of centre, the innermost part (of men, animals or plants).
Especially in Homer and the tragedians, kardia received a considerably extended
range of meaning. It not longer indicated merely the centre of the body but also the
intellectual and spiritual centre of man as a whole.
(a) kardia, the seat of the emotions and feelings, of the instincts and passions.
In this context the Greek thought of emotions like joy and sadness, courage and
cowardice, strength and fear, love, hatred and anger (Homer, //. 21, 547).
(b) Homer, in particular, brought together the heart and reason without clearly
separating thought and feeling. (//. 21, 441). From this point it is only a short step
180
HEART
to seeing the heart as the centre of man’s will and as the seat of his power of deci-
sion (//. 10, 244).
OT The OT uses /éb and /ébab for heart. /éb occurs in the older strata and /ébab
does not appear until Isa. The OT also uses heart in the two meanings, lit. and
metaphorical. The LXX renders /éb predominantly by kardia, more rarely by
dianoia (mind) and psyché (soul). The nuances of the concept are as clearly recog-
nizable here asin the OT. kardia occurs predominantly in a general sense, referring
to the whole man.
1. Viewed asa bodily organ, the heart is the seat of strength and of physical life
(Ps. 38:10[11]; Isa. 1:5). When the heart is strengthened by food the whole man is
revived (Gen. 18:5; Jdg. 19:5; 1 Ki. 21:7).
2. In the metaphorical sense /éb is the seat of man’s spiritual and intellectual
life, the inner nature of man. Here the close connection between spiritual and
intellectual processes and the functional reactions of the heart’s activity is particu-
larly clearly seen. This explains the close contact between the concepts /éb and
nepes (— Soul) which can even be used interchangeably (cf. Jos. 22:5; 1 Sam. 2:35;
Deut. 6:5). In the OT /éb is also the seat of man’s feeling, thinking and willing:
(a) The heart is the seat of the emotions, whether of joy (Deut. 28:47) or pain
(Jer. 4:19), of tranquillity (Prov. 14:30) or excitement (Deut. 19:6), etc.
(b) The heart is the seat of the understanding and of knowledge, of rational
forces and powers (1 Ki. 3:12; 4:29[MT 5:9]), as well as fantasies and visions (Jer.
14:14). But folly (Prov. 10:20 f.) and evil thoughts also operate in the heart.
(c) The will originates in the heart, also the carefully weighed intention (1 Ki.
8:17) and the decision which is ready to be put into effect (Exod. 36:2).
léb, however, means less an isolated function than the man with all his urges,
in short, the person in its totality (Ps. 22:26[27]; 73:26; 84:2[3]). It is “‘a compre-
hensive term for the personality as a whole, its inner life, its character. It is the
conscious and deliberate spiritual activity of the self-contained human ego” (W.
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 1967, 143). Here OT usage contrasts
with that of secular Gk., for there the heart, with all its differentiations of meaning,
has only one function within the system of spiritual and intellectual processes.
3. Since the idea of responsibility is particularly related to the heart, “‘that which
comes out of the heart is quite distinctively the property of the whole inner man,
and therefore makes him, as a consciously acting ego, responsible for it’? (W.
Eichrodt, op. cit., 144). Since, in the OT, the only corrective to this responsibility
of man is to be found in Yahweh, the heart is also the organ through which man,
either as godly or as disobedient, meets God’s word and acts. It is the seat of awe
and worship (1 Sam. 12:24; Jer. 32:40); the heart of the godly inclines in faithful-
ness to the law of God (Isa. 51:7), that of the ungodly is hardened and far from
God (Isa. 29:13). It is in the heart that conversion to God takes place (Ps. 51:10,
17[12, 19]; Joel 2:12).
4. The kidneys (Heb. k*/ay6t; Gk. nephros, only in plur.; in the NT only Rev.
2:23, citing Jer. 11:20) are frequently mentioned in close connection with the
heart. They are—in the metaphorical sense —the seat of the deepest spiritual
emotions and motives (Ps. 7:9[10]; 26:2; Jer. 17:10; 20:12; cf. 1 Sam. 24:5[6];
181
HEART
25:31; léb, — conscience), so secret that men cannot fathom them. Only God is
able to search and test them.
5. (a) Philo and Josephus use “heart” exclusively as a bodily organ, the central
part of physical life, without clearly defining the seat of the inner life. Philo leaves
open the question of whether the hégemonikon, the controlling reason, is to be
found in the heart or in the brain, though he shows many echoes of OT usage.
The metaphorical sense, which predominates in the OT, drops very much into the
background, especially in Josephus.
(b) On the other hand, Rab. Judaism — like the OT-—can speak of the heart as
the centre of life, even of life before God, of the good and evil thoughts that dwell
in the heart, but also of the worship of God which the heart offers (prayer; cf. e.g.
Sifre Deut. 41). (On Philo, Josephus and Rab. Jud. see J. Behm, kardia, TDNT,
III 609 ff.)
NT The NT use of kardia coincides with the OT understanding of the term, just
as much as it differs from the Gk. The meaning of heart as the inner life, the
centre of the personality and as the place in which God reveals himself to men is
even more clearly expressed in the NT than in the OT. In passages where OT would
have used heart in the sense of person, NT often uses the personal pronoun (e.g.
Matt. 9:3; 16:7; 21:25, 38; 2 Cor. 2:1). Nevertheless kardia occurs in 148 pass-
ages in the NT: in Paul 52 times; the Synoptics 47; Acts 17; Catholic Epistles 13;
Heb. 10; Jn. 6 and Rev. 3 times.
1. (a) kardia as the centre of physical life and man’s psychological make up.
kardia occurs relatively seldom in the sense of the bodily organ, the seat of natural
life (Lk. 21:34; Acts 14:17; Jas. 5:5). By contrast, it more frequently denotes the
seat of intellectual and spiritual life, the inner life in opposition to external appear-
ance (2 Cor. 5:12; 1 Thess. 2:17; cf. 1 Sam. 16:7). The powers of the — spirit,
—> reason, and —> will have their seat in the heart in the same way as the movements
of the — soul, the feelings, the passions and the instincts. The heart stands for man’s
ego. It is simply the person (“‘the hidden person of the heart’’, 1 Pet. 3:4).
(b) kardia as the centre of spiritual life. The most significant instances of kardia
in the NT occur in those passages which speak of man’s standing before God. The
heart is that in man which is addressed by God. It is the seat of doubt and hardness
as well as of faith and obedience.
A striking feature of the NT is the essential closeness of kardia to the concept
nous, mind. nous can also have the meaning of person, a man’s ego. Heart and
mind (noémata, lit. thoughts) can be used in parallel (2 Cor. 3:14 f.) or synony-
mously (Phil. 4:7). In such cases the element of knowledge is more heavily em-
phasized with nous than with kardia, where the stress lies more on the emotions
and the will (R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 1952, 222). Thus it is the person,
the thinking, feeling, willing ego of man, with particular regard to his responsibility
to God, that the NT denotes by the use of kardia.
2. Sin marks, dominates and spoils not only the physical aspects of natural man,
not only his thinking and willing, feeling and striving as individual elements, but
also their source, man’s innermost being, his heart. But if the heart has been en-
slaved by sin, the whole man is in bondage. Evil thoughts come from the heart
(Mk. 7:21 par. Matt. 15:19). Shameful desires dwell in the heart (Rom. 1:24).
182
HEART
The heart is disobedient and impenitent (Rom. 2:5; 2 Cor. 3:14 f.), hard and faith-
less (Heb. 3:12), dull and darkened (Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18). Referring to his
opponents, Jesus quoted the prophet Isaiah, “‘Your heart is far from me” (MK. 7:6;
par. Matt. 15:8). Equally he rebuked his disciples for their lack of faith and their
hardness of heart (Mk. 16:14; cf. Lk. 24:25, 32). Neither can the Gentiles excuse
themselves before God, for they carry in their hearts the knowledge of what is good
and right in God’s sight (Rom. 2:15; — Covenant, art. diathéké; — God, art. theos
NT 4(b)).
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can
understand it?” Jeremiah’s complaint (17:9) voices the view of the NT also. No
man can understand his heart, let alone change it. Man without God lives under
the power of sin, which has taken up its abode in his heart and from this vantage
point enslaves the whole man.
3. God alone can reveal the things hidden in the heart of man (1 Cor. 4:5),
examine them (Rom. 8:27) and test them (1 Thess. 2:4). Because corruption stems
from the heart it is there that God begins his work of renewal. kardia is “‘the place
where God deals with man... that part of aman... where, in the first instance, the
question for or against God is decided’’ (Gutbrod). Just as the heart is the seat of
faithlessness, it is also the seat of faith (Rom. 10:6-10). In Rom. 2:5 the human
heart is described as ametanoétos, impenitent. Hence “‘it is apparent that penitence
(metanoia, change of mind) is a matter of the “‘heart”’ (kardia) (Bultmann, op. cit.,
I, 221). Conversion takes place in the heart and is thus a matter of the whole man.
God’s word does not simply capture the understanding or the emotions, but it
pierces the heart (Acts 2:37; 5:33; 7:54).
This conversion of the heart to —> faith is not achieved through the will or desire
of the human heart (1 Cor. 2:9), but solely because God opens a man’s heart
(Acts 16:14) and lets his light illumine the heart (2 Cor. 4:6). God bears his witness
to man by sending into his heart the Spirit of his Son (2 Cor. 1:22). When this
Spirit takes up his dwelling in the heart, man is no longer a slave to sin, but a son
and heir of God (Gal 4:6 f.). God pours his love into his heart (Rom. 5:5). Through
faith Christ can take up residence in the heart (Eph. 3:17).
4. The heart of man, however, is the place not only where God arouses and
creates faith. Here faith proves its reality in obedience and patience (Rom. 6:17;
2 Thess. 3:5). Here the word of God is kept (Lk. 8:15). Here the peace of Christ
begins its rule (Col. 3:15). God’s grace strengthens and establishes the heart (Heb.
13:9). The NT describes a heart directed unreservedly to God as a “‘pure heart’’
(Matt. 5:8; | Tim. 1:5). This purity of heart is based solely on the fact that the
blood of Christ cleanses it (Heb. 10:22; cf. 1 Jn. 1:7), and Christ dwells in it by
faith (Eph. 3:17).
5. Two further related words which occur in the NT must be mentioned here.
(a) kardiognostés is unknown to secular Gk. and to the LXX, and occurs in the
NT only in Acts 1:24 and 15:8 and later in patristic writings. It describes God as
the knower of hearts. The fact that God sees, tests and searches the hidden depths
of the human heart is commonly stated in both the OT and the NT (1 Sam. 16:7;
Jer. 11:20; 17:9 f.; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4, Rev. 2:23, cf. above OT,
3). This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardio-
gnosteés.
183
HEART/HEAVEN
(b) sklérokardia, unknown in secular Gk., occurs in the LXX in Deut. 10:16;
Sir. 16:10; Jer. 4:4 (Heb. equivalent ‘or/at /ébab). Otherwise it is found only in the
NT (Mk. 10:5 par. Matt. 10:8; Mk. 16:14; similarly Rom. 2:5) and in patristic
writers. Hardness of heart is the closedness of the self-centred man to God, his
offer and demands, and also to his fellowmen. The natural man has a stony heart,
turned against God and his neighbour, until God’s intervention gives him a new,
obedient heart (cf. Ezek. 36:26 f.). T. Sorg
—> Body, — Hard, — Head, — Man
(a). J. B. Bauer, “Heart”, EBT I 360-63; C. A. Briggs, ‘““A Study of the Use of /éb and /ébab in the
Old Testament’’, in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, 1897, 94-105; R. Bultmann, Theology
of the New Testament, 1, 1952, 220-27; F. Baumgartel and J. Behm, kardia etc., TDNT III 605-14;
R. C. Dentan, “Heart”, /DB II 549 f.; R. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 1971; A. R.
Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 1949; L. J. Kuyper, ‘““The
Hardness of Heart according to Biblical Perspective’, S/T 27, 1974, 459-74; J. Pedersen, /srael,
_I-II, 1926, 99 ff.; K. Rahner, Theological Investigations, 1, 1967, 321-52; D. M. Stanley, ‘‘ ‘From
his heart will flow rivers of living water’ (Jn. 7:38)”, Cor Jesu, I, 1959, 507-42; H. W. Wolff,
Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 40-58.
(b). J. M. Bover, ‘“‘Das heilige Herz Jesu im Neuen Testament’’, Zeitschrift fiir Askese und Mystik
13, 1938, 285-301; G. E. Closen, ‘‘Das Herz des Erlosers in den heiligen Schriften des Alten
Bundes”’, Zeitschrift fiir Askese und Mystik 18, 1943, 17-30; J. Doresse, “Le Coeur”, Etudes Carméli-
taines 29, 1950, 82-97; B. de Gerardon, ‘“‘Le coeur, la bouche, les mains. Essai sur un schéme
biblique’’, Bible et Vie Chrétienne 1, 4, 1953, 7-24; A. Guillaumont, ‘‘Les sens du noms du coeur
dans l’antiquité’’, Le Coeur: Etudes Carmélitaines 29, 1950, 41-81; P. Jotion, ‘““Locutions hébraiques
avec la préposition ‘al devant /éb, leébab’’, Biblica 5, 1924, 49-53; M. Koehler, Le Coeur et les
Mains, 1962; F. H. von Meyenfeldt, Het Hart (léb, lébadb) in Het Oude Testament, 1950; F.
Notscher, Gotteswege und Menschenwege in der Bibel und in Qumran, Bonner Biblische Beitrage 15,
1958; G. Pidoux, L’ Homme dans I’ Ancien Testament, 1953; H. Rahner, Cor Salvatoris, 1954, 19-45;
H. Rusche, ‘“‘Das menschliche Herz nach biblischem Versténdnis’’, Bibel und Leben 3, 1962,
201 ff.; N. Schmidt, ‘““Anthropologische Begriffe im Alten Testament”, EvTh 24, 1964, 374-88;
F. Stolz, /éb, THAT I 861-67.
Heaven, Ascend, Above
Man has always contrasted heaven with his earthly environment (— Earth). To
the physical relationship there has also corresponded a metaphysical one. As well
as being a spatial term, heaven became a general expression for everything that
has power over man, the domain of gods and spirits. The Gk. word ouranos in-
cludes both aspects, the firmament and the abode of God (cf. the difference be-
tween sky and heaven in Eng.). Sometimes it is replaced by the purely formal and,
above (in opposition to kat6é, below; — Hell). The vb. anabaino is used in a purely
technical sense, especially of the ascent to the temple mountain, to the sanctuary,
and also of Jesus’ exaltation and ascension (— Height).
[. mene. | avaBpaiva (anabaind), go up, mount up; Katapaivw
| avafaivo | (katabaino), descend; petaPaivw (metabaind), pass over.
CL anabaino is found from Homer on. The root-word, baind, which is absent from
the NT, means to go, walk (the NT substitutes erchomai; —-~ Come). The com-
pound anabaind indicates movement towards a destination: to go up, mount up,
ascend, grow up. The spatial meaning predominates; one climbs a mountain,
184
HEAVEN
mounts a platform, goes upstairs. If the destination is a holy piace, the going up
involves performance of some cultic act. A man goes up to the temple (situated on
a higher level) to pray; the mystic is promised ascent to the world of the gods,
heaven or Olympus (Mithraic Liturgy 10, 22).
oT In the LXX anabainéd most frequently renders ‘a/ah (go up, ascend, climb) and
is used particularly of going up to the mountain of God, the sanctuary and
Jerusalem (Exod. 34:4; 1 Sam. 1:3; 2 Ki. 19:14). In Gen. 28:12 Jacob’s dream
pictured a “‘ladder’’, or more precisely a ramp or stair-like pavement, which, in
accordance with the ancient concept of the world, led up to the gate of heaven.
This was the place where intercourse between the earth and the upper divine world
took place. God’s messengers were going up and down, “fulfilling divine commands
or supervising the earth’ (G. von Rad, Genesis, 1961, 279; —> Babylon). In Jon.
2:7 descent into the underworld signifies condemnation and death, and ascent
signifies pardon and life.
NT 1. The NT retains the basic spatial sense: to climb a mountain, or go up to
Jerusalem for the Passover (Lk. 2:4; 18:10; Jn. 7:8 ff.; Acts 3:1; Gal. 2:1).
anabaino occasionally denotes the growth of plants (Matt. 13:7; so also occasion-
ally in the LXX, cf. Gen. 41:5), and metaphorically the rise of ideas (Lk. 24:38;
1 Cor. 2:9) and the ascent of prayers to God (Acts 10:4).
2. The specific cultic connotation fades in the Synoptics behind a more general
spiritual meaning. When Jesus came up out of the water of the Jordan or climbed
a mountain, his ascent was the prelude to some action on the part of God. Thus
Jesus received the — Spirit after his baptism, cf. also instances of prayer, teaching,
healing and calling (Matt. 3:16 par. Mk. 1:10; Matt. 5:1; 14:23; 15:29; Mk. 3:13;
Lk. 9:28).
3. Jn. uses anabaino as a fixed expression for the ascent of the Son of man
(similarly Acts 2:34; Rom. 10:6f.; Eph. 4:8). In this sense the vb. is comple-
mented by katabaind, descend. Both concepts describe a movement which origi-
nates from heaven and is directed towards the earth, and vice versa. The stress 1s
not on some kind of journey to heaven; the decisive element is Jesus’ going from
and to God. This is naturally expressed in the spatial categories of the ancient
world concept. Christ, as the pre-existent Logos (—> Word), bridges the gulf between
heaven and earth and becomes man (Jn. 3:13; cf. Prov. 30:4; Jn. 6:33, 38, 41 f.).
With his elevation on the cross he ascends “‘where he was before” (Jn. 6:62). His
descent reveals the Father’s love; his ascent God’s sovereign power. In his descent
Jesus is the revealer; in his ascent the perfecter through whom his people receive
the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of the Son (Jn. 20:17). In his descent
and ascent he bridges the gulf between God and the world, between light and dark-
ness. Some scholars see in this a background of gnostic ideas, but if so they are
ignored in the presentation of Jesus as the Word become flesh (Jn. 1:14; — Height,
art. hypsoo). (On this cf. L. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 1971, 222 ff. with
R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, ad loc., and Theology of the New Testament,
I, 1952, 37, 166 ff.)
The — Son stands in a permanent relationship to the — Father, which 1s
described with the help of the vision of the ascending and descending angels (Jn.
185
HEAVEN
1:51; cf. Gen. 28:12). Thus in the earthly presence of the Son of man descent and
ascent are repeated, in that his thoughts are derived from the Father and his acts
are directed to the Father.
4. (a) metabaino (pass over) is used in Jn. to describe the passage from death to
life. As Jesus crossed the frontier in his elevation on the cross, so man does in the
obedience of faith. The believer passes over into the risen Christ’s sphere of life
(Jn. 5:24; 13:1; 1 Jn. 3:14).
(b) katabaino also denotes the eschatological arrival of the Ayrios (~ Lord) and
the heavenly — Jerusalem (1 Thess. 4:16; Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10). But already God’s
good and life-giving gifts are coming down to us, above all his trustworthy
word that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures (Jas. 1:17 f.). Similarly
Jesus is the living bread which has already come to us from God himself and been
made a present reality (Jn. 6:50, 58). B. Siede
5. The ascent and descent of Christ is referred to in Eph. 4:8 ff. in connection
with a discussion of unity and gifts in the church. V. 8 alludes to Ps. 68:18 [LXX
67:19; MT 68:19]: ‘“Therefore it is said, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host
of captives, and he gave gifts to men’ ”’ (RSV). There are, however, certain obvious
differences from the Ps. The latter is in the 2nd per. sing. and refers to receiving and
not giving gifts: ‘““Thou didst ascend the high mount leading captives in thy train,
and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LorD God may
dwell there’ (RSV). The verse “alludes to the homage before God when, returning
from a war, he has occupied his throne to receive the voluntary or enforced gifts
of homage rendered to him” (A. Weiser, The Psalms, 1962, 488). E. K. Simpson
relates it specifically to David’s capture of the Jebusite fortress (2 Sam. 5:6 f.)
which became his capital, —- Jerusalem, and the ascent of the ark there (cf. 2 Sam.
6:15 f.; also Ps. 24). The idea of giving rather than receiving gifts is supported by
the Syriac version of the OT (the Peshitta) and the Targum or Aramaic paraphrase
of the Pss., where the passage is interpreted of Moses’ ascent of Sinai to receive the
law. (This may have been influenced by the reference to Sinai in the preceding
verse. In later Judaism Pentecost was regarded as the anniversary of the giving of
the law.) Eph. 4:8 is probably best regarded not as a direct quotation from the OT
as a prophecy of the bestowal of gifts, but as an interpretative gloss on the Ps.
explaining what God is doing now in contrast with the situation described in the
Ps. The introductory words “Therefore it is said’? render the Gk. dio legei, lit.
“therefore ... says’’, with the subject understood. The same expression occurs
again in Eph. 5:14 introducing a quotation which is not to be found in scripture
(cf. also Rom. 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:2; Gal. 3:16). It 1s possible that ‘“‘scripture’”’ should
be supplied as subject as in Rom. 10:11. But as neither Eph. 4:8 nor Eph. 5:14 are
verbatim quotations it seems more likely that “‘God’’ (or the Spirit) is to be under-
stood as the subject and what follows is what God is now saying to the church. In
other words, the Ps. has now to be read in the light of the descent and ascension of
Christ which has brought atsout a reversal of the situation in which the victors
received gifts from the vanquished.
The argument goes on to state that the words “the ascended’’ imply that “‘he
had also descended into the lower parts of the earth” (v. 9). The latter may be
taken as either (1) Hades (—> Hell; cf. Acts 2:25-35; cf. Ps. 16:10); (ii) the tomb
186
HEAVEN
(— Bury); or (iii) the earth, the gen. being a gen. of definition. The ascent is ful-
filled in the resurrection and ascension (cf. Phil. 2:8), the ultimate purpose of which
is ‘that he might fill all things”’ (v. 10; cf. 1:23; Col. 2:9; —> Fullness). The gifts that
are then enumerated as the result of the ascension might at first sight appear as an
anticlimax. They are seen in terms of the gift to the church of apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors and teachers (v. 11). But in the context of the argument God’s
ultimate purpose for mankind is growth in personal maturity in Christ (vv. 12-16,
cf. 1 ff.). These gifts are directly related to that growth, for they carry on the minis-
try of Christ to the church (cf. v. 7).
For further discussion of this passage see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, 1961, 81 ff.; E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Ephesians
and the Colossians, 1957, 91 f.; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, 52 ff.,
who sees Eph. 4:8 as an instance of midrash pesher deliberately modifying the text;
cf. also E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 1957, 144. C. Brown
7 dvw (and), above, upwards, up; dvw@@ev (andthen), from
| mised | above; Katw (kato), below, downwards, down.
CL ano, lit. above, upwards, earlier in time. It can describe land or mountains in
contrast to the sea, or the sky and heaven in comparison with the earth, or even
the earth in contrast to the underworld (F. Biichsel, and, TDNT I 376; Liddell-
Scott, 169).
OT Judaism emphasized strongly the contrast between above and below, i.e.
between heaven as God’s sphere and the earth as man’s. On the other hand, there
is a parallelism between what exists above and what exists and happens onearth. Thus,
as heaven cannot exist without the twelve constellations, earth cannot exist without
the twelve tribes. Similarly God studies the Torah in heaven as men do on earth
(SB II 116). In this case, that which is above is prior in time.
Stimulated by Hel. ideas, Philo worked out an extensive speculation on above
and below (cf. Rev. Div. Her. 70; Gig. 22; Som. 1, 139). But this did not prove
significant either for Jud. or the NT. Philo saw the upper and lower worlds as
divided into levels. The lowest level is the material, and on the highest God stands.
The sky forms as it were a spiritual material, the transitional level between the
upper and lower worlds. (For examples of gnostic cosmology see W. Foerster,
Gnosis: A selection of Gnostic Texts, I, 1972; I, 1974.)
NT In the NT there are no cosmological speculations which set God and the world
in radical opposition, attributing the latter to some other deity. God is the
Creator and Lord of the whole world. Nevertheless, there is a contrast in so far as a
distinction is drawn between the holy God and the sinful world.
Jesus lifted up his eyes, i.e. towards heaven, where God dwells according to the
ancient world concept (Jn. 11:41; cf. Acts 2:19). In contrast to his enemies who
are “from below [kato]’, from this sinful — world, he is ‘‘from above [and]’’ 1.e.
from God, to whom he will return (Jn. 8:23; cf. 13; cf. L. Morris, The Gospel
according to John, 1971, 446 f.).
187
HEAVEN
In Gal. 4:25 f. there is a reference to —> “Jerusalem above,”’ which is free and is
the mother of Christians, in contrast to the present Jerusalem, which, with her
children subject to the law, is in slavery.
The ‘‘upward call’? which Paul presses towards is the call of God in Jesus Christ
(Phil. 3:14). Correspondingly Paul encourages his readers to “‘seek the things that
are above’. This is more narrowly defined by a reference to the fact that Jesus
Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Col. 3:1 f.; —~ Hand, art. dexios). On
anothen —> Birth, art. gennao. H. Bietenhard
: ; ov pavdc (ouranos), heaven; ovpavioc (ouranios), heavenly ;
OD Pavoc | : : ae ;
| obpavdg émovpavioc (epouranios), heavenly; odpavd@ev (ourano-
then), from heaven.
CL ouranos, heaven, possibly related to an Indo-European root meaning water,
rain, means that which moistens or fructifies. The related adj. ouranios means
what is in heaven, comes from heaven, or appears in the heavens, i.e. heavenly.
But it can also mean what is appropriate to a god, i.e. divine, and can even stand
for god or the deity. On the other hand, it can mean simply that which belongs to
the firmament or sky. epouranios means in heaven, belonging to the divine heaven.
1. ouranos is found in Gk. from Homer on meaning the vault of heaven, the
firmament. Viewed as that which embraces everything, ouranos is divine. In pre-
Homeric religious myth Uranus (in its Latinized form) derived from the —> earth,
‘Ge, which he impregnated in a holy marriage. According to the myth, Uranus
was castrated and deposed as a god by Cronus the son of Uranus and Ge. But the
image of the god Uranus remained alive until imperial times. In Orphic mythology
heaven derived from the upper half of the cosmic egg. According to Homer, the
(brazen, iron) heaven rests on pillars which Atlas carries. In heaven dwell the —
gods, the immortal ouranioi or epouranioi, above all Zeus. One also finds in Gk.
writing the idea of a heavenly garment.
In the Gk. enlightenment the old mythological concepts dissolved; ouranos
became simply the firmament, and ouranios was applied to phenomena appearing
in this firmament. In Plato heaven can be equated with the — all, the cosmos
(—> Earth). The starry heavens viewed as the dwelling place of the gods became the
starting point for the investigation of existence and absolute knowledge. Hence
Plato used ouranios to denote what really is and what is truly coming to be. The
Stoics understood heaven as the outermost layer of the ether, and then also as the
directing world principle. In Gk. the expression “earth and heaven” can denote the
whole world. (See further H. Traub, TDNT V 498 ff.)
2. In gnostic systems the ouranioi, the heavenly ones, have a body and are
transitional beings of a supernatural nature. (See further 7DNT V 501; W. Foerster,
op. cit., see indexes.)
oT 1. The OT concepts of heaven. (a) In the OT concepts of heaven there are many
links with ancient oriental ideas. The underworld (— Hell, art. hadés), —
earth (art. gé) and heaven together form the cosmic building. The scant references
suggest the picture of the flat disc of the earth, surrounded by the ocean, above
which heaven or the firmament forms a vault like an upturned bowl or a hallow
188
HEAVEN
sphere. Above this there is the heavenly ocean (Gen. 1:8; Ps. 148:4-6). According
to the ancient oriental view, there are many other heavenly spheres beyond the
firmament which is visible from the earth. Such concepts are echoed in the expres-
sion “the heaven of heavens” (Deut. 10:14; 1 Ki. 8:27; Ps. 148:4). The OT,
however, lacks a single, definitive and comprehensive cosmogony (—> Creation; and
cf. A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 1963°).
The OT understanding of the world is throughout sober and rational, even if
there are occasional echoes in poetical language of ancient mythological ideas.
Thus heaven is said to have windows (Gen. 7:11; 2 Ki. 7:2) through which the
waters restrained by the firmament can pour. Heaven rests on pillars (Job 26:11)
or on foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). It is like a pitched — tent (Isa. 40:22; 44:24;
Ps. 104:2). It is an unrolled scroll (Isa. 34:4; — Book, art. biblos) and can be torn
(Isa. 64:1 [MT 63:19]). Together with the earth and the water under it, the heavens
make up the universe (cf. Exod. 20:4; Ps. 115:15-17). But there is no word for
universe in Heb. It is compared to a — house in which the heavens are like a loft
(Ps. 104:3; Amos 9:6). In addition to the firmament, the air above the earth can
also be called the heavens (e.g. Gen. 1:26; 6:7; — Demon, Air, art. aér).
(b) Above the firmament there are the storehouses of snow, hail (Job 38:22),
wind (Jer. 49:36; Job 37:9; Ps. 135:7), and likewise the waters (Ps. 33:7; Job
38:37) which return to heaven when it has rained (Job 36:27; Isa. 55:10).
(c) In the sense of horizontal expanse it is possible to speak of the four ends of
heaven (Jer. 49:36; Zech. 2:6[10]; 6:5; Dan. 7:2). Man cannot ascend to heaven
(Deut. 30:12; Prov. 30:4). The attempt to build a tower whose top will reach to
heaven is arrogant folly which is punished (Gen. 11:4 ff.; — Babylon).
(d) Heaven is the embodiment of permanence (Deut. 11:21; Ps. 89:29[30)]).
On the other hand, prophetic preaching also refers to judgment on the heavens
(Jer. 4:23-26; Isa. 13:13; 34:4; 50:3; 51:6); God’s judgment is a cosmic catas-
trophe. Isaiah speaks of the creation of a new heaven (Isa. 65:17; 66:22).
(e) The “‘host of heaven’”’ means the stars (Gen. 2:1; Deut. 4:19; Jdg. 5:20), or
supernatural spiritual beings (1 Ki. 22:19; Job 1:6 ff.; > Spirit). This host is
under a commander (Jos. 5:14); it has. fiery horses (2 Ki. 2:11; 6:17). Under
Assyrian influence the host of heaven became the object of worship, a practice
against which the prophets protested (e.g. 2 Ki. 17:16; 21:3). In Deut. 4:19 the
host of heaven is assigned to the peoples of the world for worship (cf. NEB).
(f) Inthe OT, however, heaven is never accorded any ruling function. This isshown,
for example, in the fact that the stars in the firmament are merely lights which serve
to divide up the calendar (Gen. 1:14). They are not, therefore, considered to be
gods, or the manifestations or vehicles of gods. The ancient oriental viewpoint has,
in this respect, been radically demythologized. Astrological ideas which elsewhere
were richly developed in the East appear only on the periphery (Deut. 18:9 ff.;
Isa. 47:13; Jer. 10:2). |
(g) Ancient oriental concepts also lie behind the correspondence between the
heavenly and the earthly, especially in the case of things which have a sacral value.
Thus, in the priestly view, the Tabernacle was built following a heavenly model
(Exod. 25:9, 40). Ezekiel speaks of a scroll which already pre-existed in heaven
(Ezek. 2:9 ff.; cf. Isa. 34:5 on God’s sword). The future, i.e. the whole eschatolo-
gical order of salvation, is prefigured and already exists or has happened in heaven,
189
HEAVEN
so that it precedes the earthly event (Zech. 2 f.). The — “Son of man,” as the per-
sonification of the eschatological people of God, is already present in heaven
(Dan. 7:13 ff.).
2. Yahweh and heaven. (a) More important for faith than these cosmological
concepts 1s the statement that Yahweh created the heavens and the earth, 1.e. the
whole universe (Gen. 1:1; cf. Isa. 42:5; Ps. 33:6). Like the whole creation, the
firmament and the heavens praise Yahweh (Ps. 19:1[2]). The heavenly beings
praise Yahweh because of his acts, for everything that happens on earth reveals
God’s glory (Ps. 29:9; — Glory, art. doxa).
(b) Many interpret passages like Jdg.5:4f., Deut. 33:2 and Hab. 3:3, to
mean that in an earlier period Yahweh was conceived as dwelling on Sinai from
which he came and intervened in history, while later people believed that Yahweh
dwelt on Zion (Amos 1:2; Isa. 8:18). But religious interest did not centre on
Yahweh’s dwelling, but on the God who deals with Israel and the nations. So
apparently contradictory statements can stand side by side. In 1 Ki. 8:12-13
Yahweh is said to dwell in the darkness of the Holy of Holies, i.e. in the — Temple.
1 Ki. 8:27, on the other hand, says that the whole of heaven could not contain him.
(c) As Israel entered into deeper contact with Canaanite religion, it took from
the cult of Baal an important expression which it assimilated to its own faith in
Yahweh. Yahweh was now described as the God or king of heaven, and this title
became in fact very popular (Ezr. 5:11 f.; 6:9f.; 7:12, 21, 23; Dan. 2:18 f., 28,
37, 44; cf. Gen. 11:5; 24:3; Ps. 29:10). It could now be said that Yahweh, like
the Canaanite gods, rides on the clouds (Deut. 33:26; Ps. 68:4[5]; cf. 18:10[11];
Isa. 19:1). As king of heaven, Yahweh had built his palace upon the heavenly ocean
(Ps. 104:3). Like the Ugaritic father god, El, Yahweh was imagined as enthroned in
heaven, surrounded by heavenly beings and taking — counsel with them (1 Ki.
22:19 ff.; Isa. 6:3 ff.; Job 1:6 ff.; Ps. 82:1; Dan. 7:9 ff.). It is remarkable how
forcefully and how freely such originally foreign views could be accepted in Israel
and transferred to Yahweh. The gods of the Canaanite pantheon had become
Yahweh’s servants. So Yahweh is the only God in heaven above and on earth
below (Deut. 4:39; 10:14).
(d) This view of Yahweh as enthroned in heaven eventually obliterated completely
the old view of the God of Sinai: Yahweh came down from his dwelling above the
firmament (Exod. 24:9 ff.) to Sinai (Exod. 19:18). Above all according to the
theology of Deut., Yahweh dwells in heaven and speaks from there (Deut. 4:36;
12:5, 11, 21; 26:15; etc.). Only his ““Name’’ (sém;— Name) dwells on earth,
according to this view, and that only in the — Temple in — Jerusalem. Further
reflection still is revealed in the statement that all heaven cannot contain Yahweh
(1 Ki. 8:27; Ps. 113:5 f.). Neither the visible nor the invisible world could enclose
Yahweh, for they were after all both created by him. But in any case he is superior
to them and does not allow himself to be confined in any way in them.
(e) Just as Yahweh is in heaven, his — Word which remains eternally has its
place in heaven (Ps. 89:2[3]; 119:89). The godly man, praying in his need, com-
plains that Yahweh is hidden (Lam. 3:4), and asks him to rend the heavens and
come down (Isa. 64:1 [MT 63:19]). Yahweh who dwells in heaven is invoked in
prayer (Deut. 26:15; 1 Ki. 8:30), while the suppliants raise their hands to heaven
(Exod. 9:29, 33). The same thing happens at the taking of an oath (Deut. 32:40).
190
HEAVEN
(f) It is possible for Yahweh to take chosen people to himself in heaven (Gen.
5:24; 2 Ki. 2:11; cf. Ps. 73:24). This is a particular favour and honour, for on the
OT view heaven is not otherwise the place where the dead or the soul go (cf. >
Hell, art. hadeés).
3. The LXX and late Judaism. (a) With few exceptions, ouranos in the LXX (667
times) always occurs as the rendering of Samayim. It is in the plur., 51 times, a
usage introduced through the LXX but unknown in secular Gk. It may be ex-
plained as translation Gk. (for the Heb. S@mayim is plur.) and as a plur. of com-
pleteness (above all in the Pss.). In later writings the frequency of the plur. increases
considerably, indicating that the ancient oriental conception of several heavens
had begun to have an effect (2 Macc. 15:23; 3 Macc. 2:2; Wis. 9:10; Tob. 8:5,
etc.). ,
In Judaism the tendency to avoid the use of God’s name became increasingly
stronger (cf. Exod. 20:7). In its place substitutes were used, among them ‘“‘heaven’’
(1 Macc. 3:18 f.; 4:10 f.; 12:15; Pirke Aboth 1:3, 11). Later even heaven was
replaced (e.g. by maqém, place). ouranios only occurs 9 times in the LXX, for the
God of Israel (1 Esd. 6:15; — Lord, art. kyrios), his power (Dan. 4:23; > Might,
art. exousia), the angels as a heavenly army (4 Macc. 4:11; cf. Lk. 2:13), and the
children of God (2 Macc. 7:34). epouranios only occurs 7 times in the LXX.
(b) Contact with the intellectual climate of the ancient East resulted in a variety
of cosmological speculations in pseudepigraphic and Rab. writings. In them
apocalyptists and Rabbis undertake journeys to heaven and give revelations about
things on the other side, but no generally binding doctrines about these things were
ever arrived at. Some apocalyptic writings know only of one heaven (Eth. Enoch,
4 Esd., Syr.Bar.). Others speak of three heavens (Test. Lev. 2 f., according to the
original text), of five heavens (Gr. Bar.). S]. Enoch, Test. Abr., and Rab. tradition
speak of seven heavens. A further result of eastern influence is the doctrine that
everything corresponds to an archetype and pattern in heaven, and that all earthly
existence and events are prefigured in heaven (— ano). Astronomical instruction
is given allegedly as revelations from the — angels (Eth. Enoch 72-82; Jub.). But
also we are shown all meteorological phenomena (rain, sun, etc.) coming from
heaven, where they are kept in store-houses. Angels are set over both as controllers
and supervisors.
(c) In certain writings —> Paradise is located in heaven, either in the third (SI.
Enoch 8:1-8; Ass. Mos. 37), or especially in Rab. tradition in the seventh. Even —
hell (art. gehenna) can be located in heaven. After death the righteous go to heavenly
dwelling-places.
There are many traditions about the heavenly Jerusalem. Speculation was par-
ticularly concerned with God’s throne in heaven (in connection with Ezek. 1 f.;
Exod. 24:9-11; 1 Ki. 22:19 ff.; Isa. 6:1 ff.; Dan. 7:9 f.) and with the — angels in
heaven, their names, classes and functions. It was believed that God was worshipped
in a heavenly cultus, the archangel Michael sacrificed on a heavenly altar, and the
heavenly beings sang songs of praise.
Finally, —> Satan 1s also to be found in heaven. In connection with OT traditions
he is viewed as the — accuser of men before God (cf. Job | f.), and also as an evil
power opposed to God. Jewish traditions about the heavenly treasure-houses are
important (— Possessions, art. thésauros). In them are kept, e.g., the good works
19]
HEAVEN
of men, and also the heavenly — books and tablets on which are written the fate of
earthly beings. Also recorded are the — rewards and punishments that await the
last — judgment.
(d) Philo combined Gk. and OT ideas. The ouranos noétos, the immaterial
heaven of conceptual thinking present only in idea (Spec. Leg., 1, 302; Op. Mund.
29; Decal. 102), must be distinguished from the ouranos aisthétos, the tangible
heaven which must not be deified (Op. Mund., 117). The visible heaven depends
on both spiritual and earthly things. Heaven actualizes the unity of the whole
cosmos. Philo speaks of the heavenly man as ouranios, a copy of God (Op.Mund.,
82). In so far as every man is a part of him, every man is also an inhabitant of
heaven. Correspondingly Philo can talk about heavenly and earthly virtues. (See
further H. Traub, TDNT V 502 f.)
NT In the NT ouranos occurs 272 times; most frequently in Matt. (82 times)
especially in the phrase basileia ton ouranon, the — kingdom of heaven. ouranos
occurs 34 times in the writings of Luke (of which 26 are in Acts); 18 times each in
Mk. and Jn.; 21 times in Paul and 52 in Rev. Apart from Matt., it occurs mostly
in the sing. ouranios occurs only 9 times, of which 7 are in Matt. in the phrases
“your heavenly Father” (5:48; 6:14, 26, 32; 23:9) and ‘“‘my heavenly Father’
(15:13; 18:35). Behind this there lies an Aram. phrase which is translated in other
passages (e.g. 18:19) by ‘‘my [your] Father in heaven.” epouranios is found 18
times in the NT, of which 11 are in Paul, 6 in Heb. and one in Jn. In contrast to the
very limited use of ouranios, epouranios is the adj. which was clearly preferred and
which later prevailed.
1. Conceptions of the world. (a) The NT also presupposes ancient eastern world
views. Rev. makes the most statements about heavenly beings and objects, but the
interest is not cosmological but theological and soteriological. There is clearly no
attempt to give definitive instruction about the geography of heaven as in certain
Rab. writings (cf. above oT 3). In this context it is striking that there is never any
mention of several heavens but only of one. The only passage in the NT which, in
agreement with Rab. teaching, speaks of three heavens is 2 Cor. 12:2-4, but we
are not given any more precise information (cf. P. E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, 1962, 432 ff.). As in the OT, the expression “‘heaven and earth”’
means the universe (Matt. 5:18, 34 f.; 11:25; 24:35; Lk. 12:56, etc.). Occasionally
a reference to the sea is added, giving rise to a tripartite formula (Acts 4:24; 14:15;
Rev. 14:7). Since, according to this world picture, heaven is “‘above’’ (— ano),
people raise their hands or their eyes towards it (Mk. 6:41 par. Matt. 14:18, Lk.
9:16; Mk. 7:34; Lk. 18:13; Jn. 17:1; Acts 1:11; 7:55; Rev. 10:5). The air can also
be called heaven (Matt. 6:26; 16:2; 8:20; Mk. 4:32; Lk. 8:5; Acts 10:12; 11:6).
In heaven, i.e. the firmament, are set the stars (+ Sun, Moon, Stars) which in
eschatological discourse about the parousia fall to the earth (Mk. 13:25 par. Matt.
24:29; Lk. 21:25; Rev. 6:13; 8:10; 9:1; 12:4-—> Present, art. parousia). Portents
are seen in heaven (Rev. 12:1, 3; 15:1; — Miracle, art. sémeion). Jesus refused to
perform a miracle from heaven (Mk. 8:11 f. par. Matt. 16:1). On the other hand,
the beast (— Animal), as > Antichrist, performs such miracles (Rev. 13:13).
(b) There are — angels in heaven as messengers and servants of God (Matt.
18:10; Mk. 12:25; 13:32 par. Matt. 24:36; Eph. 3:15; Rev. 12:7; 19:1). They
192
HEAVEN
come from and return to heaven (Matt. 28:2; Lk. 2:15; 22:43; Gal. 1:8). They
appear in the visions of John (Rev. 10:1; 18:1 etc.).—> Satan is thrown out of
heaven so that he may no longer — accuse Jesus’ disciples (Lk. 10:18; Jn. 12:31;
Rev. 12:12; cf. Isa.49:13 LXX). At this, heaven and the martyrs in heaven rejoice
(Rev. 18:20; 11:12; 7:14). It is at this point that a development begins in cosmo-
logical thinking which leads eventually to a fundamental difference between the late
Jewish apocalyptic and the Christian views of heaven. Since Satan has been banished
from heaven as the consequence of Jesus Christ’s saving work, everything dark
and evil vanishes from heaven, with the result that it becomes a world of pure light
(thus in the post-NT writings which deal with the heavenly realm, e.g. Asc. Isa.).
Where evil powers in heaven are mentioned, the reference is primarily to the air or
to the firmament (Eph. 2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Acts 7:42). Their sphere of influence,
therefore, is entirely this side of God’s realm of light.
(c) In agreement with the OT it is stated that God created heaven and earth
(Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24; Rev. 10:6; 14:7), and that he will re-create them (2 Pet.
3:13; Rev. 21:1). The present heaven is passing away like the earth (Mk. 13:31
par. Matt. 24:35, Lk. 21:32; Heb. 12:26; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10, 12; Rev. 20:11), but
Jesus’ words remain (Mk. 13:31 par. Matt. 24:35, Lk. 21:33). God is Lord of
heaven and earth (Matt. 11:25; Acts 17:24; Matt. 5:34; Acts 7:49; cf. Isa. 66:1).
(d) God is said to dwell “‘in heaven’’, but there is never any evidence of reflection
on the difficulties inherent in this statement. Occasionally God is referred to by the
OT expression “God of heaven” (Rev. 11:13; 16:11). Heaven itself is God’s throne
(Matt. 5:34), and God’s throne is said to be in heaven (Acts 7:49; Heb. 8:1; Rev.
4 f.). It follows from this (in correspondence with Rab. terminology, see above OT
3 (c)) that heaven can be used as a substitute for — God (Matt. 5:10; 6:20; Mk.
11:30; Lk. 10:20; 15:18, 21; Jn. 3:27), especially in Matt. in the expression “‘the
kingdom of heaven” (3:2, 4:17; etc.; ~ Kingdom).
It is more important theologically that God is called — ‘“‘Father in heaven”
(Matt. 5:16, 45; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32 f.; 12:50): in Christ God turns towards
man. Because God is in heaven his revelation takes place from heaven (Matt.
11:27). At Jesus’ baptism and at other crises in his earthly ministry God’s voice
was heard from heaven (Mk. 1:11 par. Matt. 3:17, Lk. 3:22; Jn. 12:28; cf. Heb.
12:25). The seer heard voices from heaven (Rev. 10:4, 8; 11:12; 14:13; 18:4; 21:3),
and the Holy — Spirit came down from heaven (Mk. 1:10 par. Matt. 3:16, Lk.
3:21; Acts 2:2; 1 Pet. 1:12). But in the same way God’s wrath goes forth from
heaven: in the form of the fire of judgment (Lk. 17:29; cf. 9:54; Rev. 20:9), and
in general upon all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Rom. 1:18).
(e) According to Acts 14:17, God gives rain and fruitful seasons ouranothen,
from heaven, implying both the physical and spiritual source. The only other
occurrence of the word is in Acts 26:13, where it is used as an alternative to ek tou
ouranou, from heaven (cf. Acts 9:3; 22:6). In period of drought heaven is considered
to have been shut up at God’s command (Lk. 4:25; Jas. 5:17 f.; Rev. 11:6).
(f) The NT also speaks of treasures of salvation in heaven. — Rewards (art.
misthos) are in heaven (Matt. 5:12 par. Lk. 5:23). There is treasure in heaven
(Matt. 6:20). The — names of the disciples are recorded in heaven (Lk. 10:20;
cf. Heb. 12:23). Their — inheritance is there also (1 Pet. 1:4). Christians have a
building (2 Cor. 5:1 f. oikodomé; cf. - House) and their citizenship or their home
193
HEAVEN
(Phil. 3:20) in heaven. There is mention of a heavenly — Jerusalem which is the
Christians’ true home (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 3:12; 21:2; 10), and even of a
— temple in heaven (Rev. 11:19; but cf. 21:22).
2. Christological statements. (a) The statements about heaven are particularly
important when they stand in relation to — Jesus Christ. At his baptism the hea-
vens opened, the Holy — Spirit descended upon him and God the Father acknow-
ledged him (Matt. 3:16 f.; cf. above 1 (d)): the eschatological events began in Jesus
and in him God was near. Heaven was open above him because he himself was now
the door of heaven and of God’s house (Bethel) on earth (Jn. 1:51; cf. Gen. 28:12).
Jesus taught his disciples to pray that God’s will would be done on earth as in
heaven (Matt. 6:10; — Prayer, art. proseuchomai). When Jesus gave authority to
Peter or to the disciples, their actions were valid in heaven, i.e. with God (Matt.
16:19; 18:19; — Bind; — Open).
Because their guardian angels behold God’s face, Jesus taught that little ones
come under his special protection (Matt. 18:10; — Large, art. mikros). The Dead
Sea Scrolls witness to belief in angels sharing in the community’s worship (1QSa
2:9 f.) and in their rdéle as guardians of the meek and needy (1QH 5:20 ff.; cf. D.
Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 275). The Jesus of Nazareth who stood before
the Sanhedrin will sit at God’s right hand (— Hand, art. dexios) and come with the
clouds of heaven (Mk. 14:62 par. Matt. 26:64, Lk. 22:69; cf. Ps. 110:1; Dan.
7:13). At the parousia the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven (Matt.
24:30; — Son, art. hyios tou anthropou). The Son of man will gather his — elect
from one end of heaven to the other (Mk. 13:27 par. Matt. 24:31; cf. Deut. 4:32;
Zech. 2:6[10]). All power in heaven and on earth has been given to the Risen One
(Matt. 28:18). He is the — Lord (art. kyrios) who has been raised to God’s throne
and to whom everything on earth and in heaven will pay homage (Phil. 2:10). He
bestows the Holy Spirit from heaven and displays wonders and signs in heaven
(Acts 2:17 f., 32-36). The Christian community is waiting for him to come to
judge and to save (Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7). The disciple’s
task is to wait for the coming of the Lord, not to look up into heaven (Acts 1:10 f.).
Heaven must receive Christ until the parousia (Acts 3:21). As the — Lamb (art.
amnos) who has been exalted to God’s throne, Christ has the power to open the
sealed book and thus to set in motion the final phase of the world’s history (Rev.
5:3, 5f.). Therefore the whole of creation praises him (Rev. 5:11 ff.). This means,
moreover, that Christ does not belong to the realm of the world, but to the realm
of God. As the One who has come from heaven and returned there, Jesus Christ
reveals himself as the true — bread (art. artos) from heaven, by means of which
God bestows eternal life (Jn. 6:31 f., 38, 41 f., 50 f.; cf. Exod. 16:4, 13-15).
(b) As in the OT (Exod. 25:9), the earthly sanctuary in Heb. is a copy of the
heavenly one. But as such it is only a shadow and the heavenly sanctuary is the
only true and real one. This heavenly sanctuary is still, eschatologically speaking,
to come (Heb. 8:5; 9:23 f.). Since Christ has entered the heavenly sanctuary, he
has shown himself to be the true High — Priest (8:5). The Christian’s calling to
—> faith is also epouranios (3:1; cf. Phil. 3:14). So too are the gifts, the eschatological
salvation which Christians have tasted (6:4; 9:28). The homeland of the pilgrim
people of God (11:16) and their Jerusalem, viewed as an eschatological — goal,
are likewise epouranios, heavenly (12:22).
194
HEAVEN
According to Heb., Jesus’ exaltation (1:3; 8:1; — Height) signifies the fulfilment
of his high priestly office. He has passed through the heavens and has been raised
higher than they (4:14; 7:26; 9:11, 23 f.), since he has reached the very throne of
God. There he has performed his real, true priestly service (8:1 f.), at the same time
fulfilling and surpassing that of the OT. One cannot say in detail what cosmological
perspectives underlie this statement. However, it seems clear that God is thought of
here as not dwelling in heaven, i.e. not within his creation to which heaven of course
belongs, but above or beyond the heavens. This idea is the outcome of reflection,
although even here God’s transcendence over his creation is still expressed in
spatial terms.
(c) Certain special emphases are to be found in Eph. and Col. Christ is not only
the agent of — creation (cf. | Cor. 8:6): primitive Christianity had no special
belief in creation apart from belief in Christ. Christ was before anything created
came to be, and he himself was not created (Col. 1:16). Christ is the instrument,
the agent and the goal of creation; without him nothing can exist. Special emphasis
is laid on the fact that everything, including the heavenly powers, was created “‘in
Christ” and has been reconciled through him (Col. 1:15—23). The very heavenly
powers were created solely for Christ (Col. 1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 15:24: Christ will
destroy the heavenly powers). Christ is — head over all principalities and powers
(cf. Col. 2:20). (On the background ideas see R. P. Martin, Colossians: The
Church’s Lord and the Christian’s Liberty, 1972, 4-20.)
It is the exalted Christ who has penetrated all the heavenly spheres and come
down to earth. He has broken through the barrier erected by the evil powers which
isolated men from God (Eph. 1:10; 4:9; cf. Pss. 67:18[LXX]; 68:18[MT]; Rom.
9:5). Similarly Eph. 1:23 and 4:10 apply to Christ the OT statement that Yahweh
fills heaven and earth. This is a consequence of the thought of Eph. 1:10 (cf. Col.
1:16, 20) that every created thing has its goal in Christ and has no independent
existence apart from him. — Creation is strictly related to the redeemer and to
—> redemption. Creation and redemption, therefore, cannot be sundered in the
gnostic fashion. Admittedly there are echoes of gnostic thought in the statement
that heaven is filled with demonic powers which enslave men (Eph. 1 :10-23; Col.
1:16f.). The passages quoted, however, show equally that everything is under-
stood as referring strictly to Christ (Col. 1:20), and creation is envisaged from the
standpoint of redemptive history (Col. 1:16 f.).
Christ’s exaltation (Phil. 2:9 f.) is expressed in Eph. 1:10 by means of the image
of the primal man with — body and — head. Everything is bound together under
Christ as head, whether on earth or in heaven (i.e. all the members of the body,
the complete — ‘‘all’’). There is no other realm but that of Christ. Eph. 3:15 puts it
somewhat differently: heaven and earth are realms in which there are races or
tribes (cf. Eth. Enoch 69:4; 71:1; 106:5; cf. the Rab. expression “‘higher families”’
for the angelic world) whose Father is God.
3. (a) In Jn. the word ouranos, heaven, only occurs in the sing. This is an indica-
tion that both gnostic and Jewish speculations about the heaven are absent. God’s
will to save and the salvation effected by Jesus Christ determine the statements
about heaven. Jesus comes from heaven and returns there. In principle the Son of
man who has come down from heaven has much to say about heaven (epourania)
and the plans of God concealed there. But such statements would call forth an
195
HEAVEN
even smaller response of faith than those he makes about God’s present activity on
earth (Jn. 3:12 f., 31 f.).
(b) 1 Cor. 15:40 refers to the bodily form of heavenly beings — whether stars
or angelic powers. Christ, the pre-existent, risen and coming One, is the heavenly
—> man, whose image, i.e. whose bodily form, Christians will receive at the parousia
(1 Cor. 15:48 f.). All beings, even the heavenly ones, will bow the knee before the
risen and exalted Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:10 f.). God has raised Jesus to his right hand,
en tois epouraniois (from ta epourania, a circumlocution for heaven), i.e. in heaven,
and thus blessed Christians with spiritual blessing (Eph. 1:3, 20). For spiritually they
have already risen with Christ and been exalted to heaven (Eph. 2:6; cf. Ps. 110:1).
The manifold wisdom of God will be made known to the principalities and powers
in heaven (Eph. 3:10; the same phrase as above): the saving work of Christ has
cosmic significance. According to 2 Tim. 4:18, Christ’s kingdom is epouranios, 1.e.
it possesses heavenly authority and glory, and it is therefore superior to every
temptation and persecution which the apostle has to suffer. H. Bietenhard
—> Angel, — Demon, — Hand, — Height, — Hell, — Kingdom, — Myth, — Satan
(a). K. Barth, CD III 3, 369-531; J.S. Bonnell, Heaven and Hell, 1956; P. G. Bretscher, ‘“‘Exodus
4:22-23 and the Voice from Heaven’’, JBL 87, 1968, 301-11; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John,
1971; J.G. Davies, He Ascended into Heaven: A Study in the Historyof Doctrine (Bampton Lectures,
1958), 1958; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 1967, 186-209; T. H. Gaster, “‘Heaven’’,
IDB II 551 f.; D. K. Innes, ““Heaven and Sky in the Old Testament’, EQ 43, 1971, 144-48;
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1951; R. Koch, ‘‘Ascension”, EBT I 37-42; K. Lake, ‘‘The
Ascension” and ‘“‘The Mount of Olives and Bethany” in F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, eds.,
The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 1923, 16-22, 475 f.; A. T. Lincoln, ‘“‘A Re-Examination of ‘the
Heavenlies’ in Ephesians’, NTS 19, 1972-73, 468-83; W. A. Meeks, ““The Man from Heaven in
Johannine Sectarianism”’, JBL 91, 1972, 44-72; J. Michl, ‘““Heaven”, EBT I 363-69; W. Milligan,
The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord, 1898; H. Odeberg, The View of the Universe
in the Epistle to the Ephesians, Lunds Universitets Arsskrift N. F. Avd. 1, Band 29, Nr. 6, 1934;
G. von Rad and H. Traub, ouranos, TDNT V 497-543; J. Schneider, baino, TDNT I 518-23;
C. Schoonhoven, The Wrath of Heaven, 1966; U. Simon, Heaven in the Christian Tradition, 1958;
W. M. Smith, The Biblical Doctrine of Heaven, 1968; and “‘Heaven’’, ZPEB III 60-64; L. I. J.
Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 1970, 37-125; H. B. Swete, The Ascended
Christ: A Study in the Earliest Christian Teaching, 1910; G. Widengren, The Ascension of the
Apostle and the Heavenly Book, 1950.
(b). G. Bertram, “‘Die Himmelfahrt Jesu vom Kreuz’’, Festgabe fiir A. Deissmann, 1927, 187-217;
H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spatjudentum, WUNT 2, 1951; H.
Diels, ““Himmels- und Hollenfahrten von Homer bis Dante’, Neue Jahrbiicher des klassischen
Altertums, 50, 1922, 239-52; R. Eisler, Weltman telund Himmelszelt, 1910; T. Fligge, Die
Vorstellung tiber den Himmel im Alten Testament 1937; G. K. Frank, Himmelund Holle, 1970; H.
Gebhardt, “Der Himmel im Neuen Testament”, Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft und
kirchliches Leben 7, 1886, 555-75; H. Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 1970*; J. Haecke,
J. Schmid, J. Ratzinger, LTK V 352-58; J. Heller, ““Himmelund Mollenfahrt nach Romer 10,
6-7”, EuTh 5, 1972, 478 ff.; R. Holland, “Zur Typik der Himmelfahrt’’, ARW 23, 1925, 207-220;
F. H. Kettler, ““Enderwartung und himmlischer Stufenbau im Kirchenbegriff des nachaposto-
lischen Zeitalters”, TLZ 79, 1954, 358 ff.; A. Klawek, ‘‘Der Himmel als Wohnung der Seligen
im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter’’, Collectanea Theologica, 13, 1932, 111-24; G. Lohfink, “‘Der
historische Ansatz der Himmelfahrt Christi’, Catholica, 17, 1963, 44 ff.; E. Lohmeyer, Das
Evangelium nach Matthaus, KEK Sonderband, 19623, 75 ff.; W. Michaelis, ““Zur Uberlieferung
der Himmelfahrtgeschichte’’, TABI 4, 1925, 101-109; A. Oepke, ‘‘Unser Glaube an die Himmelfahrt
Christi”, Luthertum, 5, 1938, 161-86; G. Schille, ““Die Himmelfahrt’”, ZNW 57, 1966, 183 ff.;
H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epherbrief, BHTh 6, 1930; H. Westphal, ‘‘Jahves
Wohnstatten”’, ZAW Beiheft 25, 1908, 251-73.
196
HEIGHT
Height, Depth, Exalt
| Badoc | Baboc (bathos), depth; BaOvc (bathys), deep.
cL 1. bathos is related linguistically to béssa (Doric bassa), valley floor, cleft.
There is also a close connection with abyssos, bottomless (lit. unfathomable;
—> Hell).
2. bathos expresses distance from the speaker, but not only downwards. It can
be horizontal or even upwards. bathos, therefore, denotes the extension of a thing
in any spatial dimension (cf. bathos trichon, length of hair). In military usage
bathos indicates the number of men standing behind one another. It is frequently
used in conjunction with — hypsos to denote the full extent of an object in every
dimension. Figuratively, bathos expresses: (a) the completeness, intensity, fullness
or greatness of an object (especially in conjunction with hypsos), or of a human
quality (wisdom, understanding, soul); and (b) inscrutability and hiddenness.
The derived adj. bathys has the same shades of meaning as the noun. The neut.
form used as a noun, to bathy, means that which is deep-seated, that which comes
from the bottom of the heart.
3. Hel. and especially gnostic religion took up the figurative meaning in speaking
of the depth of deity and of — God as depth (Tert., Adv. Val. 1; Iren., Haer. 1, 21,
2; Hippol., Haer. 5, 6, 4; cf. H. Schlier, 7DNT 1517). This last expression indicates
that God was thought of primarily as a-personal and not as ““Thou”’ or “‘He’’, as
something static and inscrutable and not as the Living One, the Self-Revealing.
oT 1. In the OT (LXX) bathos is used chiefly as equivalent of Heb. m*silah. In its
lit. meaning bathos is used only of the depth of the sea (Exod. 15:5; Neh. 9:11;
Zech. 10:11). In its fig. sense bathos always denotes that which is separated from
God. bathos, therefore, stands for the inner need of the man troubled by guilt and
—> sin (Ps. 130[129]:1) and for the external need of pressing circumstances (Ps.
69 :2,14[68 : 3,15]). bathos expresses the most extreme separation from God (the depths
of the sea, Jon. 2:4; Mic. 7:19) in passages where the frontier between literal and
figurative meanings is fluid. In Ezek. bathos stands for tahti and thus for the under-
world (cf. 26:20; 31:14, 18; 32:18f., 24). Here, too, bathos expresses separation
from God. Heb. ma‘*maggim, depths, is also rendered in the LXX bathos (Isa.
51:10 etc.), while the adj. bathys is used for the words in the ‘amdg group (cf. Job
11:8; 12:22; Ps. 63[64]:6; Prov. 18:4).
2. It is significant that Heb. t*°h6m is not rendered bathos but abyssos (— Hell).
English versions nevertheless translate it by deep (cf. Gen. 1:2; Job 28:14). While
bathos always contains the idea of separation from God, abyssos suggests a final,
primeval, terrible and mysterious depth.
3. The Qumran texts speak of the depth of the mysteries of God (1QS 11:19;
1QM 10:11).
NT bathos appears 8 times in the NT; the adj. bathys 4. The literal sense occurs
only in the Synoptics: depth of soil (Matt. 13:5 par. Mk. 4:5), the depth of the
sea (Lk. 5:4). bathys is used figuratively in 2 Cor. 8:2 (deep poverty) to underline
the extremity of the poverty. Elsewhere we find a figurative meaning related, not
to the OT, but to Hel. and Rab. usage.
197
HEIGHT
1. Rom. 11:33 and | Cor. 2:10 speak of the depth of God or the depth of the
knowledge of God. This refers to the unfathomable nature of the ways and judg-
ments of God, as opposed to the mere superficiality of human insight. But it also
suggests the richness of the ways and means available to God in the pursuit of his
plan of salvation. It is important that God is not reduced here to an impersonal
“Tt”. God is not described as the ultimate ground of all being, but as the One who
has revealed himself in Jesus Christ in whom are hidden the ultimate mysteries.
bathos reflects, therefore, the paradox of unveiling and veiling which is Christian >
revelation.
2. Similarly, in Eph. 3:18 bathos occurs in conjunction with other spatial terms
in order to express the comprehensiveness of God’s grace and of salvation in Christ.
Christian faith should not be satisfied with the fragmentary or the superficial.
3. On the other hand, in Rom. 8:39 bathos is linked with hypsdma (cf. Isa. 7:11),
and clearly describes some kind of power which oppresses mankind. In astrology
bathos is the part of heaven below the horizon from which the stars rise. Powers
emanating from the stars are perhaps intended here. What is theologically decisive,
however, is the statement that even the powers (of the stars) of the deep have been
defeated by the power of the love of God in Jesus Christ —a statement of great
relevance even today.
4. Of the four occurrences of the adj. bathys in the NT, only Rev. 2:24 is of
theological significance (cf. Lk. 24:1; Jn. 4:11; Acts 20:9). Here the deep things
of Satan are referred to, in parallel with the deep things of God. This takes up a
slogan from a gnosticizing movement. What is meant is participation in all the
ungodliness of this world (in order to “‘prove” the more effectively the power of grace
and of salvation in Christ). To plunge into such depths, however, does not mean
control over these powers but surrender to them and the consequent loss of
salvation. J. Blunck
| «OYWOS (Aypsos), high; bwydAdc (hypsélos), high, exalted,
| eee | proud; bwampa (hypsoma), height, the exalted; bwiatoc
(hypsistos), highest, most exalted.
CL 1. hypsos, attested from Aeschylus on, denotes primarily extension upwards in
space, height (only of things, not of people); figuratively (a) the superiority
and exaltation of a thing or person over another; (b) unattainability. In the case of
people hypsos could take the negative sense of — pride. In conjunction with
—» bathos, it denotes the complete dimensions and aspects of an object.
2. The adj. Aypsélos, attested from Homer on, was also originally spatial in
meaning: high (buildings, plants, position), and was used figuratively in both a
positive (sublime) and a negative sense (pompous, high-sounding). Secular Gk. had
many compounds of hypsélos, but none came into the NT. Instead, there is a new
formation, hypsélophroneo, to think highly (of oneself), to be proud (only 1 Tim.
6:17).
3. hypsoma is first attested in late Gk. after the translation of the LXX, meaning
height, exaltation, what is exalted. It was always used in figurative senses, e.g. in
Plutarch as an astrological term for the closest approach of a star to the zenith
(opposite, tapeindma) (Arndt, 858).
198
HEIGHT
oT In the LXX hypsos stands for a variety of Heb. words (qomdah, marém, gabah).
1. (a) It is used literally to denote the height of an object (the dark, Gen. 6:15
[LXX 6:16]; a mountain, 2 Ki. 19:23; Ps. 95 [LXX 94]:4; the Temple, Ezr. 6:3;
a tree, Ezek. 31:14).
(b) Used absolutely, hypsos often denotes the heavenly realm (—> Heaven), the
realm of God, that which is closely related to God (Heb. marém: Pss. 68:19 [LXX
67:18]; 102:20 [LXX 101:19]; 144[LXX 143]:7; Isa. 40:26; cf. Isa. 7:11; also
frequently in the Qumran texts). It is thus the opposite of — bathos (that which is
separated from God). Thus both hypsos and hypsistos (e.g. Gen. 14:18 f.; Ps. 17
[18]:13) can be simply a substitute for — God himself. (On Aypsistos see Arndt, 858.)
(c) In relation to men, hypsos in Isa. 2:17 stands for human pride. In 1 Macc.
10:24 it has the sense of encouragement.
2. (a) The adj. hypsélos occurs in the LX X in as great a variety of meanings as in
secular Gk. (60 times for Heb. bamdah; 43 times for derivatives of the root gabah; 31
times for rim; 19 for nadtdh). Used as a noun, it acquired special significance. More
emphatic than hypsos, it denotes the realm of God (Ps. 93[LXX 92]:4; Lam. 1:13),
the place where God dwells (Isa. 33:5, 16; 57:15). The Spirit from on high (Isa.
32:15) is the Spirit of God.
(b) However, in a remarkable reversal of this usage, the word is also used to
translate Heb. bamét, the Canaanite shrines and pagan high places (Jer. 19:5; 2
Chr. 14:2; 17:6; Ezek. 6:3).
NT 1. hypsos in the spatial sense occurs only in Rev. 21:16 in the description of the
measurements of the new Jerusalem. Similarly hypsélos is used literally in
Matt. 4:8; 17:1; Mk.9:2 and Rev. 21:10, 12 of mountains and walls. In these
contexts the dimensional aspect is uppermost, but there are symbolic overtones.
2. (a) Inaccord with OT usage, both words serve to denote the realm of God or his
dwelling (Lk. 1:78) to which Jesus is exalted (Eph. 4:8 citing Ps. 68:19, — Heaven,
art. anabaind; Heb. 1:3; cf. Ps. 110:1) to sit at God’s right — hand interceding
for men (cf. Heb. 9:24). Even in the figurative meaning the spatial concept — in
accordance with the ancient view of the world — still remains in the background
(— Heaven). But it is not primary, for it has been transcended by the non-spatial.
This is seen most clearly in Heb. 7:26. hypsélos here acquires the meaning of the
wholly other in contrast to what man and the cosmos can conceive.
In gnostic systems the thought is of the place, the sanctuary of God, beyond the
heavenly spheres, which are filled with — angels and powers. This may be compared
with the Epistle to the Hebrews where the exaltation of Christ is pictured in terms
of the Day of Atonement ritual (cf. chs. 9-10 with Lev. 16). Having penetrated
these heights, the high-priest Jesus Christ has been installed to exercise his sover-
eignty. In this exaltation he experiences fulfilment because of his obedience in
suffering, which reached its climax in Jesus’ sacrifice of himself on the cross (~
hypsoo). “But, above all, the doctrine of the sanctifying sacrifice on the cross is
fitted into a scheme of thought in which the going up to heaven is the really import-
ant event. In the Epistle to the Hebrews this going up to heaven corresponds to
the High Priest’s going into the Sanctuary. This however cannot be done without
a sacrifice. Thus the sacrifice on the cross opens to the new High Priest the way to
heaven” (E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 1960, 72).
199
HEIGHT
(b) Lk. 24:49 speaks of power from on high. Here likewise Aypsos is a peri-
phrasis for — God and stands on the same footing as Rab. formulae for avoiding
the Divine Name. The same is true of hypsistos, the Highest (e.g. Lk. 1:32, 35, 76;
Acts 7:48). Acts 13:17 also reflects OT ideas (cf. Exod. 6:6). The arm is an expres-
sion of the might and power of God. Describing this arm as hypsélos, raised,
stretched out, is a vivid way of expressing the idea that God’s power is not in
repose but in action.
3. (a) In Jas. 1:9 hypsos appears in contrast with tapeinosis (— Humility, art.
tapeinos), and is therefore best rendered “exaltation” (RSV; cf. “high position’,
Arndt, 858). The passage refers to the salvation already given and yet still to come
in Christ which paradoxically reverses all human relationships and in the faith
exalts those who are lowly. The poor man (which in Jas. is a religious term virtually
synonymous with Christian) is to hold fast here and now to this eschatological
exaltation by faith.
(b) On the other hand, since this exaltation is not something the Christian earns
for himself for a quality which he possesses in himself but is Christ’s gift to him, he
can be commanded not to think of himself as hypsélos (Rom. 11:20) but to asso-
ciate with the lowly (Rom. 12:16). Since exaltation is the work of God, every
personal desire for exaltation is an abomination to him (Lk. 16:15).
4. The NT use of Aypsdéma probably reflects astrological ideas (see CL 3), and
hence denotes cosmic powers. Rom. 8:39 and 2 Cor. 10:5 are both concerned with
powers directed against God, seeking to intervene between God and man. They are
possibly related to the stoicheia tou kosmou, the elemental powers of this world, (cf.
Col. 2:8, 20). However high and mighty they may seem, they are to be strenuously
resisted (2 Cor. 10:5) in the knowledge that not even they can separate the Christian
from Christ (Rom. 8:39). J. Blunck
; sos. 7 byow (hypsod), exalt, raise; baEpvyow (hyperhypsood),
| tye raise above all heights.
cL For etymology — hypsos. The idea of exaltation played an important role in the
myths which were a part of the religious background of the OT. This is illus-
trated by the concept of exaltation in the Babylonian creation epic, Eniima Elish
(c. 1000 B.c.; cf. A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 19637; ANET, 60-72) which
begins ““When above the heaven had not (yet) been named’. The mythological
introduction to the work describes the struggle of the Babylonian god Marduk
with the gods of chaos (the sea-dragon, Tiamat, and the primal usurper of divine
sovereignty, Kingu). The victorious Marduk created the material world out of
the divided halves of Tiamat and men out of the blood of Kingu. He is therefore
raised in the assembly of the gods to the position of sovereignty over the world. He
then correspondingly raises his earthly representative, Hammurabi, and installs
him as ruler over men.
A text from the Egyptian king myth (14th cent. B.c.) which belongs to the coro-
nation liturgy of the god-king, also related how pharaoh Thut-mose III was raised
by the sun god Ré himself to the realm of light, and there crowned and installed
as the god’s son (cf. ANET, 373 ff.).
200
HEIGHT
The significance of exaltation is different in the Babylonian myths of Adapa
(A. Heidel, op. cit., 147-53; ANET, 101 ff.) and Etana (ANET, 114 ff.). Adapa was
the man who worked his way up to heaven and could not obtain the food of life
there. The enterprise foundered on the punitive justice of the gods, who reduce
man to the confines appointed to him. In the myth of Etana, Etana tried in vain to
reach Ishtar’s throne in heaven on the back of an eagle which was under an obliga-
tion to him. His aim was to achieve immortality without dying. Both myths involve
an attempt at exaltation through man’s own efforts, whereas in the Babylonian
creation myth and the Egyptian king myth the exaltation is the work of the
gods.
OT hypsood occurs 150 times in the LXX, standing 94 times for the Heb. rim and
its derivatives, 19 for gabah and its derivatives (9 out of 13 in Ezek.), 12 each
for gadal and nasa’. hyperhypsoo occurs about 50 times, and has a Heb. equivalent
in only 4. The basic meaning is exalt (Pss. 18 [LXX 17]:46; 27 [LXX 26]:5, 6; 30
[LXX 29]:1; 34 [LXX 33]:3; 57 [LXX 56]:5, 11; 108 [LXX 107]:5; Exod. 15:2;
Ezek. 28:2), be high (Pss. 89 [LXX 88]:13; 61 [LXX 60]:2); then by extension to
stretch out (mostly of the hand, Isa. 23:4), to be loud (to raise the voice, Isa. 37:23;
52:8), to grow (Ezek. 31:4, 10), to bring up (Isa. 14:26), to be beautiful (Isa. 4:2;
Ps. 89 [LXX 88]:16; EVV exalt, extol), to praise (Pss. 107 [LXX 106]:32; 118
[LXX 117]:28; EVV to exalt, extol). In the OT God alone has the right to exalt
(and also to bring low, 1 Sam. 2:7). Man always runs the risk, therefore, of over-
reaching himself by self-exaltation. Thus in a few passages hypsod acquires the
meaning to be proud, haughty, presumptuous, arrogant (Pss. 37 [LXX 36]:20;
131 [LXX 130]:1, 2; Ezek. 28:5).
For the LXX, exaltation no longer has the same meaning as in the Babylonian
and Egyptian myths. Nor does it have the same meaning as in the dualistic re-
demption teaching of Hel. syncretism, where in a mystical and mythological
system the concept of exaltation achieved decisive importance (cf. especially the
excellent essay by G. Bertram referred to in the bibliography). The following LXX
usages are theologically significant.
(a) The exaltation of the righteous, i.e. of all those who in their extreme need
through poverty, oppression, or deprivation of rights (+ Humility, art. prajs)
seek help from Yahweh alone (cf. Pss. 37 [LXX 36:34]; 89 [LXX 88:17]; 112
[LXX 111:9]). “In so far as it speaks of the exaltation of men, the LXX is concerned
with a sociological question which as such is drawn into the light of revelation”’
(G. Bertram, op. cit., 71). The righteous man who encounters God experiences
exaltation in his every-day circumstances lifting his life to a new plane. Thus the
righteous man is promised a positive transformation of his present situation
through Yahweh’s intervention.
(b) The exaltation of God by the individual worshipper or the congregation.
Behind this in the background is the liturgy for the festival of the god’s enthrone-
ment in the Egyptian king myth which is important for the origin of the concept,
but is no longer of any real significance. In the LXX the exaltation of God has
already become a liturgical formula by which worshippers pay homage to God (e.g.
Ps. 99 [LXX 98]:5, 9), and in which they acknowledge their loyalty to Yahweh as
cosmic Lord above all other gods (cf. Ps. 97 [LXX 96]:9). Personal piety, however,
201
HEIGHT
also expresses itself by means of this liturgical formula: “‘magnify the Lord and let
us exalt his name” (Ps. 34 [LXX 33]:3). In the OT the exaltation of Yahweh
includes the exaltation of his people. The instalment of the earthly ruler in the
enthronement Psalm corresponds to it (cf. Bertram, 50; cf. Ps. 148:14).
(c) Self-exaltation, i.e. the exaltation that man seeks to bring about in independ-
ence of the God who claims his obedience and provides for his needs (cf. Ps. 75
[LXX 74]:4, 5). By exalting himself and in self-gratification relying on his own
strength, man places himself in opposition to God and calls forth Yahweh’s
humbling intervention (Ps. 75 [LXX 74]:7; Isa. 2:11, 17).
To sum up, the LXX, in so far as it relies on the MT, has taken over the concept
of exaltation from the latter’s religious environment, but has consistently demytho-
logized it. Exaltation is a means of expressing God’s saving activity in the realm of
earthly affairs and of testifying to man’s gratitude in worship and praise. Negatively
it expresses man’s disobedient self-assertion.
2. The apocalyptic writings of post-canonical Jewish literature were much more
receptive to mythological ideas. Recalling Moses’ ascent to the mountain of God,
temporary exaltation, understood realistically or ecstatically, became in the apo-
cryphal tradition the vehicle of divine revelations (cf. Eth.Enoch 39:3; 52:1; 89:52;
90:31; 2 Esd. 14:9, 49; Gr.Bar. 2 ff.).
The righteous are promised a place in — heaven at a final exaltation (Dan. 7:22;
Syr.Bar. 13:3). Enoch’s translation in the books associated with his name, during
which he received his revelations close to God, plays a special role in this context.
As son of man he is exalted to the highest heaven to the lord of spirits (Eth. Enoch
70 ff.).
The way of the righteous as it is described in Wis. 2: 10—20; 3: 7-10; 4:10 and 5:
1—5 is also particularly worth mentioning. The ungodly do violence to the righteous
man because he boasts of knowing God. He is ill-treated and killed so that God
may demonstrate whether he is his son. God exalts him, and men do not under-
stand. At the final judgment the righteous will oppose his adversaries to their
terror, and will receive the kingdom of glory. ““The way of the righteous one
depicted here is even in many details the way which Jesus has actually gone’”’ (E.
Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 1969, 30).
3. Exaltation was understood differently in the mystery religions. Through the
mysteries the way to exaltation was revealed to the soul, a way which the redeemer
had trodden already. This way lead to a personal exaltation with the rebirth of the
devotee. Here too exaltation received soteriological significance: it was the path
to redemption which could be anticipated in ecstatic experience (— Knowledge,
art. gindsko CL 2; on this subject see G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Mystery
Religions, 1967).
NT /Aypso6 occurs 20 times in the NT. It means to make great, as in Paul’s speech
in Acts 13:17 (the God, who made the people of Israel great in Egypt); to exalt
(12 times as a contrast to bring low). The theologically important passages are
those in which Aypsoo denotes the exaltation of Jesus (6 times: Jn. 3:14; 8:28;
12:32, 34; Acts 2:33; 5:31).
1. Behind the sayings on self-abasement and self-exaltation (Matt. 23:12; Lk.
14:11; 18:14) lies the basic form of the two-part OT Jewish masal (cf. Job 22:29;
202
HEIGHT
Prov. 29:23; Sir. 3:18; and also oT | (a)). The righteous, lowly, humble and suffer-
ing man is promised exaltation as a— reward. This teaching acquired a new
significance in the context of the message of Jesus. Jesus put the whole of human
life once more on the basis of obedience towards God (—> Hear). In so far as the
Pharisees ascribed respect and honour to themselves, they were denying God the
obedience of service. The true disciple must be ready to follow Jesus along the path
of humility to suffering (cf. Lk. 14:27), in order selflessly to serve the despised, his
neighbour. He is promised exaltation at the resurrection (Lk. 14:13 f.) and the
fulfilment at the eschatological judgment of the promises made in the beatitudes
(Matt. 5:1-12). This still future exaltation means justification before God in the
final judgment on the ground of discipleship. However, the immediate present
already takes on a new form for the disciple in anticipation. The man who exalts
himself is the man who, having attempted to secure his life, will lose it in God’s
eschatological judgment (cf. Lk. 17:33; cf. also Lk. 1:52; 10:12, 15 par. Matt.
10:15). In their exhortations, therefore, 1 Pet. 5:6 and Jas. 4:10 warn Christians
to submit to God (or to his — hand), in order to share in exaltation in the future
—> glory.
2. (a) The first christological statements, following the description of the way
of the righteous in Israel, clearly see the resurrection and the exaltation of Jesus
together. This is particularly plain in Acts 2:33 and 5:31 which describe as exalta-
tion Jesus’ resurrection and his installation as Lord (cf. 2:36). As these passages
suggest a different emphasis to the Lucan theology of the ascension in Acts 1,
we must be dealing here with earlier tradition. According to this tradition, the
Easter event was the decisive event for salvation, because in it the crucified One
was installed as Lord and Christ, 1.e. exalted (Acts 2:36). Jesus’ exaltation signifies
the completion of God’s action in his — anointed and at the same time the begin-
ning, continuance and the expected fulfilment of Christ’s Lordship over church and
world.
(b) The concept of exaltation also occurs in the hymn quoted by Paul in Phil.
2:5-11 (2:9 hyperhypsdsen). Jesus’ humiliation (vv. 6-8) is contrasted with his
exaltation (vv. 9-11). His exaltation is the consequence of his obedience in suffering
and consists in his designation as sovereign, not only over the community of
believers but over the whole universe. In granting to Jesus the new name of — Lord
(Kyrios), believers acknowledge in his exaltation Christ’s victory, i.e. a transfer of
authority over the universe (cf. Col. 1:19, 20). (On Phil. 2:5-11 — Empty, art.
kenos; — Form, arts. morphé and schéma.) Similar statements expressed in different
language occur frequently in the NT: e.g. Rom. 1:4 “designated [horisthentos]
Son of God’ (~ Determine, art. horizo); 1 Tim. 3:16 “taken up [anelémphthé] in
glory’. In this exaltation (1 Tim. 3:16) “Jesus is ‘vindicated’. This is also the oldest
comment in which the Easter events constitute the justification of the way of Jesus.
They demonstrate that Jesus was ‘the Righteous One’ ”’ (E. Schweizer, op. cit., 65).
Justification resulted in the victorious return to the Father and in the enthronement
of the Saviour. “Here even more than in Phil. 2:9-11 it is emphasized that his
dominion is so all-embracing that it has welded heaven and earth together again”’
(E. Schweizer, op. cit., 66).
(c) The concept of exaltation plays an important part in the christology of Jn.,
where it is used, as frequently in the OT, in parallel with glorification, doxazd
203
HEIGHT
(— Glory, art. doxa; e.g. Jn. 17:5 see above oT 1). The idea of exaltation plays a
similar part in the christology of Heb., although the word hypsoo itself is not used
(cf. 2:7 “crowned”; 1:9 “‘anointed’’; 1:13; 10:12; 12:2 “seated at the right hand
of God”’; 5:5). Jn. takes over the idea of the exaltation of the righteous, as it had
already appeared in the LXX but where it had been understood historically in
terms of this world, or psychologically. But more particularly Jn. takes over the
form of the idea present in Jewish apocryphal writing (Eth.Enoch, 2 Esd., Jub.,
Syr. Bar). and in Rab. literature, and corrects it. The object of this correction is to
show that there is only one exaltation, the exaltation of Christ (3:14; 8:28; 12:32,
34). Like anabaino (—> Heaven), hypsoo is a periphrasis for the return of the revealer
from the world to his heavenly home (cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971,
152 f.). If, with E. Schweizer, we accept that Jesus saw himself as the — Son of
man, in order in this one term to embrace the double nature of his activity as of
this world in humiliation and suffering and as exalted in full authority and glory
(op. cit., 41), then Jn. uses this idea consistently and already describes the cruci-
fixion as the exaltation of Jesus (Jn. 3:14; 8:28; cf. 12:34). In a unique ambiguity
the concept of exaltation is applied both to the physical act of being lifted up on the
cross and to the exaltation to new glory, power and honour. This can only be
understood on the basis of Jn.’s view of Jesus’ death as the ultimate consequence
and goal of his obedience. This means that in the eyes of the world, his goal is
nothing more than the lifting up on the cross. “Yet they do not suspect that by
‘lifting him up’ they themselves make him their judge. The double-meaning of
‘lifting up’ is obvious. They lift Jesus up by crucifying him; but it is precisely
through his crucifixion that he is lifted up to his heavenly glory as the Son of Man.
At the very moment when they think that they are passing judgment on him he
becomes their judge” (Bultmann, op. cit., 350). By contrast, the believer recognizes
in Jesus’ obedience unto death his complete oneness with the Father, and thus
knows that the crucifixion is the return of the Son to glory, and redemption for the
believer (Jn. 12:32). The lifting up on the cross, therefore, is the beginning of exal-
tation into the glory of the Father. The Johannine teaching on exaltation is Jn.’s
counterpart to the realistic presentations of the ascension in the synoptics.
(d) The statements about the humiliation of God in Jesus Christ and his exalta-
tion have affinities with views from the OT, from extra-canonical and Rab. Jewish
writings and from gnostic thought. In the NT as in the OT exaltation is, however,
understood not in terms of myth but of history. Despite the great variety of christo-
logical statements and developments in the NT, there is one essential concern
which is contained in the concept of the exaltation of Jesus and is preserved in all
the NT writings. It is that the crucified is the One whom God has called to life to
be Lord of the dead and of the living (Rom. 14:9), who has conquered every power
and dominion including sin and death, so that under his Lordship the company of
believers may go on its way comforted. D. Miiller
—> Heaven, — Hand, — Hell
(a). K. Barth, ‘““‘The Exaltation of the Son of Man’, CD IV 2, 3-377; G. Bertram, Aypsos etc.
TDNT 602-20; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1959; E. Lohse, Colossians
and Philemon, Hermeneia, 1971; G. H. C. Macgregor, “Principalities and Powers: the Cosmic
Background to Paul’s Thought’, N7S 1, 1954-55, 17-28; K. H. Schelkle, “‘Exaltation”, EBT J
242 f.; H. Schlier, bathos, TDNT 1 517 f.; E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 1960; P. H.
204
HEIGHT/HELL
Vaughan, The Meaning of ‘badma@’ in the Old Testament: A Study of Etymological Textual and
Archaeological Evidence, Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series 3, 1974. On passages
in the Psalms see the commentaries by A. A. Anderson, I-II (New Century Bible, 1972) and A.
Weiser (Old Testament Library, 1962).
(b). G. Bertram, “Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der Erhohung in der LXX”’, ZAW 68,
1956, 57 ff.; H. Bleienstein, ‘“‘Der erhéhte Christus’’, Geist und Leben 27, 1954, 84-90; J. Daniélou,
‘““La session a la droite du Pére’’, in The Gospels Reconsidered: A Selection of Papers read at the
International Congress on the Four Gospels in 1957, 1960, 68-77; W. Thusing, Die Erhéhung und
Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 21, 1, 1960; A.
Vergote, “‘L’exaltation du Christ en croix selon le quatrieme évangile”’, Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 28, 1952, 5—23.
Hell, Abyss, Hades, Gehenna, Lower Regions
In speaking about the ultimate fate of the dead the Bible makes use of a variety
of concepts. In some cases they are simply taken over under outside religious
influence, but in others there has been a subsequent characteristic transformation.
There is no unified picture of an unambiguously formulated doctrine, and the
power of — death must also be seen in the light of the victory of the — cross.
hadés is the temporary abode of the dead, to which they are banished. It is not
clear whether the rare term katoteros stands for the depths of the human world,
threatened by death, or the depths of the realm of the dead itself. Judaism is the
source of the two terms abyssos and gehenna. abyssos means a particular place of
terror which constitutes a refuge for demons; gehenna is the eschatological fiery
hell to which the ungodly will be eternally condemned at the last — judgment.
—> Heaven; — Life; — Paradise; — Time.
| adfvadoc | dfvaaoc (abyssos), abyss, pit, underworld.
CL & OT abyssos is really an adj., meaning bottomless, unfathomable. Used by
itself with the noun gé (earth) understood, it means a bottomless place, hence
abyss. In late Gk. the word stood for the primal deep, the primal ocean, the realm
of the dead, the underworld.
It occurs about 25 times in the LXX, mostly to translate Heb. t*hém, the primal
ocean (Gen. 1:2), deep waters (Ps. 42:7 [LXX 41:7]), the realm of the dead (Ps.
71:20 [LXX 70:20]). Rab. Judaism also maintained the meaning primal flood for
t°~hom. However, the word also stands for the interior of the earth, where bodies are
found which cause uncleanness. The abyss also came to stand for the prison of
fallen spirits (Eth.Enoch 10:4 ff.; 18:11 ff.; Jub. 5:6 ff.).
NT In the NT abyssos is the prison for — demons (Lk. 8:31; Rev. 9:1 f.). It is
closed, but the smoke of subterranean fires rises from it (Rev. 9:1 f.). It is ruled
by a prince — not — Satan (Rev. 9:11). Weird creatures emerge from it (Rev.
9:3 ff.), as does the beast (— Animal; — Antichrist, Rev. 11:7; 17:8). Satan is
bound in it for the thousand years’ reign (Rev. 20:1, 3).
Rom. 10:7 f., following the LXX of Ps. 106:26 (MT 107:26), uses the word to
describe the realm of the dead. It is impossible for a living man to descend into the
abyssos. H. Bietenhard
205
HELL
= gonc (hadés), Hades, the underworld, the realm of the
gonc dead.
CL The etymology of the word hadés is uncertain. It either comes from idein (to
see) with the negative prefix, a-, and so would mean the invisible; or it is
connected with aianés, and would have meant originally gloomy, gruesome.
hadés occurs in Homer (in the form of Aidés) as the proper name of the god
of the underworld (//., 15, 188), while in the rest of Gk. literature it stands for the
underworld as the abode of the dead who lead a shadowy existence in it (cf.
Hesiod, Theog. 455; Homer, Od. 4, 834). After Homer it can mean the grave, death.
Only gradually did the Gks. also attach to the concept the ideas of — reward and
—> punishment. The good and the righteous were rewarded in hadés, the wicked and
the godless received a variety of punishments there. In cl. Gk. it is also spelled
Aidés (Ionic), Aidas (Doric).
oT |. In the LXX hadés occurs more than 100 times, in the majority of instances
to translate Heb. §°’6/, the underworld which receives all the dead. It is a land of
darkness, in which God is not remembered (Job 10:21 f.; 26:5; Ps. 6:5; 30:9
[LXX 29:9]; 115:17 [LXX 113:25]; Prov. 1:12; 27:20; Isa. 5:14). These concepts
cannot be squared exactly with that of the grave of the ancestors, the family burial
place, where the dead are to be found. What is decisive is the theological statement
that Yahweh does not remember the dead, that they are cut off from him and out-
side his activity in history (Ps. 88:5, L1[LXX 87:5, 11]). They also stand outside
the cult and its influence. In death there is no proclamation or praise (Ps. 88:11
[LXX 87:11]; Isa. 38:18). The dead are unclean and therefore, in sharp contrast
with surrounding religions, Israel’s dead enjoyed no sacral worship. There was no
cult of the dead, and necromancy was expressly forbidden (Deut. 18:11). The
exceptional case of | Sam. 28:7 ff. and the mention of the raising of a dead boy
(2 Ki. 4:32 ff.) suggest that there was no rigid divide between dead and living.
But no one in Israel could comfort himself with the hope of one day being re-
united with the departed. The shades themselves suffer under their decay (Job
14:21 f.).
On the other hand, §°’6/ not only lies on the border of life in the beyond. It also
penetrates the circle of the living on every side, through illness, weakness, imprison-
ment, oppression by enemies and by death. Thus the psalmist in his prayers can
say that he has already in a sense been in §°’6/, but has been rescued by Yahweh.
It was possible also for Israel to equate with §°’6/ the — wilderness, or at least to
attribute the qualities of death to it (Jer. 2:6, 31). Wherever the voice of Yahweh
is not heard or he abandons a man, there the reality of — death and s°6/ begins
(Job 12:24 ff.). Dying, therefore, is not a bio-physical process; it is the disintegra-
tion or ending of the life-relationship with Yahweh. Nevertheless, Yahweh’s
power does not cease at the frontier of the realm of the dead (Amos 9:2; Ps. 139:8
[LXX 138:8]), although he is not concerned about the realm of the dead. “The
realm of the dead remained an indefinable third party between Yahweh and his
creation” (G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, U, 1965, 350). Only exceptionally
did faith (Job 14:13-22) or the poetic imagination (Isa. 14:9 ff.; Ezek. 32:20 ff.)
concern themselves with the realm of the dead. There are only isolated hints at hope
206
HELL
beyond death (Job 19:25-27; Ps. 49 [LXX 48]; 73:23 ff. [LXX 72:23 ff.]). So at the
frontiers of the OT there appears the hope of — resurrection (— Death, oT 2; cf.
H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel, 1956, 150-76).
2. In Rab. Judaism, under Persian and Hel. influence, the doctrine of the immort-
ality of the — soul appeared, and this altered the concept of hadés. The earliest
attestation of this doctrine is Eth.Enoch 22. This chapter is closely related to Lk.
16:22 ff. (cf. also Eth.Enoch 51:1; 102:5; 103:7; 2 Macc. 6:24): reward and
punishment begin, after death, in hadés. According to Josephus (Ant. 18, 14; cf.
War 2, 163; 3, 375; SB IV 1166, 1182 ff.), this was the position of the — Pharisees
and the Essenes, in contrast to that of the — Sadducees. A later view states that the
souls of the righteous, after death, enter heavenly blessedness, while the souls of
the ungodly are punished in hadés. hadés thus lost its role as the resting place of all
souls and became a place of punishment for the souls of the ungodly (cf. Eth.Enoch
63:10; Pss.Sol. 14:6 f.; 15:11; Gr. Bar. 4).
Under the influence of the doctrine of the — resurrection hadés lost its role as
the eternal resting place of souls and became a preparatory, temporary resting
place for souls until the resurrection (cf. Eth.Enoch 51:1; Test.Ben. 10; Sib. 4:178-
190; 2 Esd. 5:45). 2 Esd. 7:78-100 attempts to establish a compromise between the
doctrines of immortality and of the resurrection. According to this, the souls of the
righteous enjoy for a time in the beyond a foretaste of the blessedness which will
be theirs after the resurrection. The ungodly, on the other hand, receive a fore-
taste of the punishment that awaits them after the last judgment. This compromise
did not prevail in Judaism.
NT In the NT hadés occurs 10 times, and that only in Matt., Lk., Acts and Rev.
In the other writings other terms occur (— abyssos; — gehenna).
1. Hades lies within the earth, so that one has to go down to it (Matt. 11:23;
Lk. 10:15; cf. Matt. 12:40 kardia tés gés, the heart of the earth). It is a prison
(phylaké, | Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7). Like a city or town it has — gates (Matt. 16:18),
and is locked with a key which Christ holds in his hand (Rev. 1:18). The gates
“‘will not close to imprison (in death) those who belong to the messianic com-
munity” (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 261). On the other hand, Rev.
20:14 seems to indicate that Hades, like — death, may be thought of as a person.
At the resurrection Hades must give up its dead again (Rev. 20:13). So it is not an
eternal but only a temporary place or state. According to Acts 2:27, 31 and Lk.
16:23, 26, all the dead are in Hades. According to other passages, only the spirits
of the ungodly are in Hades (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:13 f.). According to Rev. 20:4,
the martyrs will rise and reign with Christ for a thousand years (~~ Number; —
Glossary of Technical Terms, art. Chiliasm).
2. A NT innovation, by comparison with Judaism, is the fact that Jesus has
risen to an eternal life (Heb. 7:16). He has taken the power of death and the devil
from them (Heb. 2:14), and is Lord of the dead and of the living (Rom. 14:9).
Through faith in Christ ideas are transformed: Hades cannot affect the church
(Matt. 16:18 f.; 1 Pet. 3:19 ff.; 4:6; Rev. 1:18). Anyone who dies is united with
Christ (Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8) —even though naked, i.e. without a body (2 Cor.
5:2 f.) — or is in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22), or under the heavenly altar
(Rev. 6:9) like the martyrs, or before God’s throne (Rev. 7:9; 14:3). Christ has
207
HELL
preached to the spirits in prison (1 Pet. 3:19 ff.; 4:6). The saving work of Jesus
Christ embraces the dead, and nothing is beyond the grace of Christ.
3. The fact that in the NT there is no description of ideas about the beyond must
be connected with this emphasis on the all-embracing dominion and grace of Christ.
There is no doctrine of the beyond or any geography of the beyond. This is in sharp
contrast to certain Rab. Jewish and also Christian writings down to Dante’s
Divine Comedy. Perhaps, however, it was the very silence of the NT about the
details of the beyond and of the temporary state which excited the curiosity of the
pseudo-pious and led to dissatisfaction with placing one’s hope in Christ alone.
The idea that the statements of scripture have to be enlarged upon by human
imagination indicates a lack of faith. A contributory factor here is the substitution
of the Gk. doctrine of the immortality of the soul in place of the NT doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15). This comes about in unreflective Christianity
which fails tx ask whether the belief is grounded in the NT or in pagan Gk. thought.
H. Bietenhard
| réena | yéewva (gehienna), Gehenna, hell
oT The word gehenna does not appear in the LXX or Gk. literature. It is the Gk.
form of the Aram. géhinnam, which in turn goes back to the Heb. géhinnom. This
originally denoted a valley lying to the south of Jerusalem (today, Wadi er-Rabdabi),
the valley of the son (or sons) of Hinnom (Jos. 15:8; 18:16; Isa. 31:9; 66:24; Jer.
32:35; 2 Chr. 33:6). (See L. H. Grollenberg, Atlas of the Bible, 1957, 96, 114f.,
152.) Child sacrifices were offered in this valley (2 Ki. 16:3; 21:6). Josiah had it
desecrated (2 Ki. 23:10). According to Jer. 7:32; 19:6f., it will be the place of
God’s judgment.
Jewish apocalyptic assumed that this valley would become, after the final
judgment, the hell of fire (Eth.Enoch 90:26 f.; 27:1 ff.; 54:1 ff.; 56:3 f.). H ‘nce the
name gehenna came to be applied to the eschatological hell of fire in genéral, even
when it was no longer localized at Jerusalem (e.g. 2 Esd. 7:36; Syr.Bar. 59:10;
85:13, Sib. 1:103). In time gehenna became simply the place of punishment and so
attracted the corresponding ideas about Hades (— hadés). gehenna thus became a
temporary place of punishment (until the final judgment). At about the end of the
Ist cent. A.D. or the beginning of the 2nd the doctrine of a fiery purgatory arose
among the Rabbis. All those in whose cases merit and guilt are equally balanced
go to gehenna. There they are purified and, if they do penance, inherit paradise.
Alongside this we find the concept of an eschatological Gehinnom judgment,
limited in time, after the last judgment (SB IV 1022-1118).
NT For the NT gehenna was a pre-existent entity (Matt. 25:41), a fiery abyss (Matt.
13:42, 50). It was the place of eschatological punishment after the last judgment,
punishment of eternal duration (Matt. 25:41, 46; 23:15, 33). Body and soul are
judged in it (Mk. 9:43, 45, 47 f.; Matt. 10:28). It was also to be distinguished from
Hades which houses the souls of the dead before the last judgment. The same
punishment will overtake — Satan and the > demons, the beast (> Animal) from
the abyss, the false — prophet,» death and Hades (Matt. 25:41; 8:29; Rev.
208
HELL
19:20; 20:10, 14f.). In contrast with later Christian writings and ideas, the torments
of hell are not described in the NT, “If they are mentioned, it is only to rouse
consciences to fear of the wrath of the heavenly Judge” (J. Jeremias, 7DNT I 658;
cf. Matt. 10:28; Lk. 12:5). Neither does the NT contain the idea that Satan is the
prince of gehenna, to whom sinners are handed over for punishment.
H. Bietenhard
| KATWTEPOG | Katwtepoc (katoteros), lower.
CL & OT katoteros is the comparative of kato, under. In the LXX it stands for
tahton and occurs mostly in the Pss. to denote any area in which life is threatened,
or the realm of the dead itself (Pss. 62[63]:9; 85[86]:13; 87[88]:6; 138[139]:15).
NT In the NT the word occurs only in Eph. 4:9 (Christ descended) eis ta katotera
meré tés gés, “into the lower parts of the earth’’.
The following questions arise: Is the comparative katéteros here used in the sense
of the superlative (into the lowest regions of the earth) or of the positive (into the
regions of the earth, which lie below; so Radermacher, see bibliography)? Is gés a
gen. of apposition? In that case the expression would mean, the lowest parts,
namely the earth. If gés is a partitive gen. the expression would mean the lowest
parts of the earth. Funk § 167, following F. Biichsel, 7DNT III 641, takes it to
mean the regions under the earth. Does katdteros correspond to the expression
which occurs in the OT, the lowest (regions) of the earth, which can refer to the
earth itself (Ps. 139:15 [LXX 138:15]) and also to Hades, lying under the earth
(Ps. 63:9 [LXX 62:9]; Tob. 13:2)? According to a Rab. tradition (attested around
A.D. 250 in R. Jehoshua b. Levi), one of the names for Gehinnom (— geenna) was
lowest land, lowest earth (Heb. eres hattahtit, cf. Erub. 19a; SB IV 1023 f.). Hence
the phrase, the lower parts of the earth, could be a rendering of this Heb. expression.
It is possible that Eph. was dependent on an older Jewish exposition of Ps. 68:18
[LX X 67:18]. Moses ascended into heaven to receive the Torah and to transmit it
to men (SB II 596). This exposition was then applied to Christ. The ascent of which
the Ps. speaks is to be referred to the same person (Christ) who previously descended
(—> Heaven, art. anabaino for alternative exegesis of Eph. 4:8). Then the question
arises whether “the descended’”’ and “‘the lower parts of the earth’? must not refer
to the death of Jesus. Jesus’ death belongs to his full manhood. Anyone who dies,
according to the Jewish view, goes into the realm of the dead; and this realm of the
dead lies under the earth (— hadés). So this passage would not imply an actual
battle with Hades which the redeemer had to fight, but only the entering of the
dead Jesus into the realm of the dead (F. Biichsel, TDNT III 641; — Flesh, NT 2
(a)).
If the view is correct, that Jesus became man in such a way that he took man’s
final destiny upon himself and had to descend into the realm of the dead, light is
thrown on the statement of Eph. 1 :20—23. The “all in all’ which he fills means the
highest — heights and the lowest depth (the realm of the dead). It also means that
he has thus received power over all beings, in particular over the spirits.
Other passages in Eph. which deal with Jesus’ death speak only of an event on
earth (Eph. 5:2, 25). In any case, even if it is the death of Jesus and his related
209
HELL/HERB
entering into Hades that the passage has in mind, this latter idea is emphasized.
Moreover, no weight at all is attached to the spatial concept. Ultimately it
matters little whether the earth itself or regions lying beneath its surface are meant
here. What is important is the fact that Christ is the exalted One and conqueror of
all powers and dominions, and that as such he gives — gifts to his church. In
modern exposition the reference of this passage to the descensus ad inferos (“‘he
descended into hell’’ in the Apostles’ Creed) is almost without exception rejected
(cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°, 378-88 for the historical back-
ground of the idea). H. Bietenhard
—> Death, — Demon, — Fire, — Gate, — Heaven, — Judgment, — Satan
(a). J. S. Bonnell, Heaven and Hell: A Present-Day Christian Interpretation, 1956;S.G. F. Brandon,
The Judgment of the Dead: An Historical and Comparative Study of the Idea of a Post-Mortem
Judgment in the Major Religions, 1967; and Man and his Destiny in the Great Religions, 1962;
H. Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, 1957; and ‘Hell’, ZPEB III 114 ff.; F. Bitchsel,
kato etc, TDNT Ill 640 ff.; R. Bultmann, ‘“‘Polis and Hades in Sophocles’ Antigone’, Essays
Philosophical and Theological, 1953, 22-35; W. Eichrodt, ““The Underworld’’, Theology of the
Old Testament, Il, 1967, 210-28; T. H. Gaster, Thespis, 1950; and ‘“‘Dead, Abode of the’’, JDB I
787 f.; J. Jeremias, abyssos, TDNT19f.; geenna, TDNTI1 657 f.; hadés, TDNT I 146-49; J. N. D.
Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 19723, 378-88; J. Kiurzinger, ‘‘Descent into Hell”, EBT I 202-6;
F. Loofs, *‘Descent to Hades (Christ’s)”, ERE IV 654-63; J. A. MacCulloch, ‘“‘Descent to Hades
(Ethnic), ERE 1V 648-54; and The Harrowing of Hell, 1930; J. Michl, ‘‘Hell”’, EBT I 369 ff.;
B. Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 1946; S.S. Smalley, ““The Eschatology
of Ephesians’, EQ 28, 1956, 152-7; L. 1. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World,
1970; H. Vorgrimler, ‘“‘Christ’s Descent into Hell: Is it Important ?”, Concilium, I 2, 1966, 75-81.
(b). C. Barth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten
Testaments, 1947; G. Beer, ‘“‘Der Biblische Hades’’, in Theologische Abhandlungen zu Ehren H. J.
Holtzmanns, 1902; A. Bertholet, Die israelitischen Vorstellungen vom Zustande nach dem Tode,
1899; and ‘‘Zu den babylonischen und israelitischen Unterweltvorstellungen’’, Festschrift Paul
Haupt, 1926, 8-18; H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spdatjudentum,
1951; and ‘“‘Kennt das Neue Testament die Vorstellung vom Fegefeuer ?’’, ThZ 3, 1947, 101 ff.; P.
Dhorme, ‘‘Le séjour des morts chez les Babyloniens et les Hébreux’’, RB4, 1908, 59-78; E. Ebeling
Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier, 1, 1931; J. Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeit-
geschichte, Il, 1925°, 227-42, 258-63; J. Gnilka and J. Ratzinger, LTK V 445-49; G. K. Frank,
Himmel und Holle, 1970; F. C. Grant, W. von Soden, H.-J. Kraus, B. Reicke, ““Hdlle’’, RGG? III
400 ff.; A. Grillmeier, ‘‘Der Gottessohn im Totenreich’’, Z7K 71, 1949, 1-53, 184-203; and in
LTK V 450-55; J. Kroll, Gott und Holle, 1932; A. Lods, La Croyance a la Vie Future et le Culte
des Morts dans I’ Antiquité Israélite, 1906; G. Quell, Die Auffassung des Todes in Israel, 1925; T.
Sartory and G. Sartory-Reidick, Jn der Holle brennt kein Feuer, 1968; SB III 596 f.; IV 2, 1016 ff.;
K. Schilder, Wat is de Hel ?, 1930; F. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 1892; C. Spicq, “La
revelation de l’enfer dans la Sainte Ecriture’’, in G. Bardy et al., L’Enfer, 1950, 91-143; K. Tallquist,
Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt 1934; P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jiidischen Gemeinde
im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1934, 256-72, 309-32.
Herb, Plant, Grass
| Adxavov | Aayavov (lachanon), herb, vegetable; Botavy (botané),
plant; dvy@ov (anéthon), dill; m7dboapuov (hédyosmon),
mint; KUuvov (kyminon), cummin; myyavov (péganon), rue; yoptoc (chortos),
grass, hay.
CL In secular Gk. /achanon, related to lachaino (dig), denotes garden herbs and
vegetables, as opposed to wild plants (Epicrates, Plato). botané, from bosko
210
HERB/HIDE
(graze), is used of pasture, herbs, weeds. anéthon means dill, the plant Anethum
graveolens, employed in seasoning. hédyosmon is mint (Mentha viridis, M. longifolia)
derived from hédys, sweet, pleasant, and osmaomai, smell. kyminon, cummin, is the
aromatic seed of Cuminum cyminum, grown for flavouring dishes; used proverbially
of a skinflint prepared to saw the tiny seed in half (Sophron). péganon is rue, the
culinary and medicinal herb Ruta graveolens. chortos means an enclosed feeding
space; by extension, pasturage; and so fodder, grass, hay.
OT Four of the above terms appear in the LXX, but with one exception only in the
literal sense. (a) /Jachanon as in secular Gk. stands for edible herbs and vege-
tables. (b) botané translates dese’ (grass), from a Heb. verb meaning to sprout
abundantly (Gen. 1:11; Jer. 14:5); ‘éseb (cultivated plants) in Exodus (e.g. 9:22);
and hasir (herbage in general, Job 8:12). (c) Kyminon transliterates the Heb. kam-
mon, cummin (Isa. 28:25, 27). (d) chortos nearly 50 times renders the Heb. ‘ésed,
seed-bearing annuals springing up after rain: grass, weeds, vegetables, cereals. The
character of chortos inspires metaphors and similes. Defeated enemies are like
down-trodden grass (4 Ki. 19:26); men flourish like sprouting grass (Ps. 71:16)
and as suddenly wilt (Ps. 101:4, 11), for human life is transient (Isa. 40:6).
NT 1. Primary Meanings. In the NT lachanon is consistently used for herbs (Lk.
11:42) and chortos for grass (Matt. 14:19) or the early grasslike blades of crops
(Matt. 13:26). Jesus deplores the Pharisees’ concern for tithing insignificant herbs
(lachanon) like mint (hédyosmon), rue (péganon), dill (anéthon), and cummin
(kyminon), to the neglect of weightier matters (Matt. 23:23; Lk. 11:42), and in
excess of the law’s requirements (Deut. 14:22-23).
2. Extended Meanings. (a) In Rom 14:2 Paul refers to certain converts from
Judaism eating only vegetables (/Jachanon) because their feeble grasp of Christian
liberty keeps them from disregarding either Jewish dietary laws or the possibility
that shop-meat has been associated with pagan sacrifices. (b) In Heb. 6:7 respon-
sive believers are likened to fertile land heavy with crops (botané). (c) Human life is
transitory like chortos (grass) (Jas. 1:10, 11; 1 Pet. 1:24, quoting Isa. 40:6, 7).
chortos (hay), possible but poor building material, illustrates unsatisfactory Chris-
tian service (1 Cor. 3:12). God’s care over short-lived grass guarantees his far
greater concern for human needs (Matt. 6:30). — Fullness, art. chortazo.
N. Hillyer
G. Bornkamm, lachanon, TDNT IV 65 ff.; H. N. and A. L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 1952;
A. E. Riithy, Die Pflanze und ihre Teile, 1942; W. Walker, All the Plants of the Bible, 1957.
Hide, Conceal
Both vbs. dealt with here have the same primary meaning, to hide. But whereas
kalypto is used more in the sense of to cover or conceal, the more frequently used
vb. Arypté means to hide away, make secret. However, the meaning cannot always
be precisely distinguished. In theological use they occur in contexts chiefly concerned
with man’s ability to see and experience, on the one hand, and the will and activity
of God, on the other. Often they are used in passages asserting that God will make
himself, or what is hidden, open to human experience or sight.
211
HIDE
; Kadvat@ (kalyptéd), cover, hide, conceal; dvaxadintw
KaAvnTM Z Ne :
(anakalypto), uncover, unveil; Kataxadtntw (kataka-
lypt6), cover up, veil; xaAvuua (kalymma), veil, covering.
CL & OT kalypto, to conceal, cover (attested from Homer in classical Gk., but rare
in Attic prose), is found in later Gk. in both lit. and fig. senses. In the LXX it
stands for the Heb. kissah (piel), and is used of the cloud which covered Sinai and
of the darkness which covers the earth (Exod. 24:15; Isa. 60:2). In Ps. 32:5 the
word is used of concealing; in Ps. 85:2 of God’s covering of sin in forgiveness. The
word is frequent in Pss. (e.g. 31:5; 43:15; 84:2) and Ezek. (e.g. 7:18; 16:8; 24:7f.).
anakalypto, used for Heb. galadh, to disclose, uncover, reveal, is related in
meaning to apokalypto (— Revelation). It is attested in cl. Gk. from the 5th cent.
B.C. In the LXX it is used in Job 12:22 of the uncovering of hidden depths shrouded
in darkness; in 33:16 of the uncovering of the mind (nous) of men. In Isa. 47:3
Babylon, addressed figuratively as a virgin, is threatened with the uncovering of
her nakedness (aischyné) as a divine punishment, while in Jer. 13:22 Judah is
similarly threatened with the lifting of her skirts (a symbol of humiliation).
katakalypto, to hide, cover up, attested in cl. Gk. from Homer, is found in
Exod. 26:34 and Num. 4:5 of the covering of the ark with a curtain. In Isa. 6:2
the seraphim cover their faces and their feet with their wings. In the mid. meaning,
to cover oneself, Tamar is said in Gen. 38:15 to have veiled her face, i.e. like a
prostitute. The rare verbal adj. akatakalyptos, unveiled (Lev. 13:45), occurs in the
NT only in 1 Cor. 11:5, 13 (~ Head).
kalymma, veil, covering, attested in cl. Gk. from Homer, is used in Exod.
34:34-35 of the veil worn by Moses to cover his face. In Num. 4:6, 8, 12 etc. the
word (along with katakalymma) is used of the cloths with which the holy objects
like the ark of the covenant, the altar, the altar vessels etc. were kept from being
touched or seen. To look at them or touch them could mean death (Num. 4:15, 20).
NT 1. The words of this group are relatively rare in the NT and are found only in
Matt., Lk., | and 2 Cor. | Pet and Jas. (a) In the lit. sense kalypto is found at
Matt. 8:24 (the ship is covered by the waves); Lk. 8:16 (no one covers a lamp
with a vessel); and Lk. 23:30 (people will say to the hills, ““Cover us!’’).
(b) A fig. use is found in the general statement, ““There is nothing covered that
will not be revealed” (Matt. 10:26 = Lk. 12:2). Lk.’s version has here the intensi-
fied form synkekalymmenon, while the parallel tradition in Mk. 4:22 = Lk. 8:17
has — krypton. The statement allows of various applications; but in the context
it refers here to the commission given by Jesus to his — disciples. The word told
to them in secret is to be proclaimed publicly from the rooftops (Matt. 10:27).
2. In 1 Cor. 11:1-6 Paul deals with the question of women’s veils. This is the
only place in the NT where the mid. katakalyptesthai to veil oneself (twice, in
vv. 6-7), and the adj. akatakalyptos, unveiled (vv. 5, 13), are found. Paul demands
that a — woman wear a veil when praying or prophesying in church (vv. 4-5; cf.
the women “who prophesied” in Acts 21:9). This requirement is in keeping with the
strict Jewish and Oriental sense of what is fitting, according to which it would be
unthinkable for a woman to appear in public without a veil (v. 13). The Gk. custom
was probably not uniform, but the church in the international city of Corinth was
scarcely a purely Greek church. Paul wishes this custom to be observed not only
212
HIDE
in Corinth but also in the other churches (v. 16). Because, however, of the variety
of circumstances, this was not by any means the case (A. Oepke, TDNT III 563).
The puzzling thing is the ground for this ruling given in v. 10 (over and above the
reference in v. 13 to what is fitting): the women are to have an “‘authority”’ on their
head. The authority (exousia) refers to the head-covering, the veil (Old Latin
texts translate it velamen); but the odd expression exousia is not adequately
explained (cf. W. Foerster, exousia, TDNT II 570 f.). Just as difficult are the words
‘“‘because of the angels’. Are the angels the guardians of the natural order (vv.
8, 9; cf. Gen. 2:21 ff.)? Or is the veil a protection against fallen angels who might
wish to lead the women astray? Attempts have been made to find a background
for such an interpretation in Gen. 6:1 ff., where it is recorded that the “‘sons of
God’’ (the reference is to angelic powers) took to wife the daughters of men. Jewish
literature of the NT period expanded this story further (Eth.Enoch 6; Syr.Bar. 56;
Test.Reub. 5). The brevity of Paul’s reference makes it difficult to be certain of the
correct interpretation. (For further discussion of this whole passage — Head, NT
3.)
3. (a) The word kalymma, covering, is found 4 times in the NT, all in 2 Cor.
3:13-16. Here Paul makes reference to Exod. 34:33-—35, where it is recorded that
Moses put a veil over his face, because the Israelites feared the divine radiance which
came from it (Exod. 34:30; cf. Num. 4:15, 20). Paul disregards the fear motive.
He interprets the passage to mean that Moses put on the veil in order that the
Israelites might not see the end of the temporary radiance. The passing — glory
(doxa) of the old covenant is contrasted with the eternal glory of the new (v. 11).
This veil remains unlifted, we read in vv. 14 f., up to the present day when the “‘old
covenant” is read. It lies over the minds of the Jews who cannot grasp the true
meaning of the old covenant as a pointer to Christ. Just as Moses removed the
veil when he went in to God (Exod. 34:34), so will the veil be removed from Israel
when they are converted to the Lord, i.e. when they allow themselves to be ruled by
the — Spirit (v. 16; cf. v. 17, ho de kyrios to pneuma estin, the Lord is the Spirit).
(On this whole passage see P. E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians, 1962, 107-34; W. C. van Unnik, “With Unveiled Face’, NovT 6,
1963, 153ff.)
(b) The same context contains in vv. 14 and 18 the only NT instances of the vb.
anakalypto. There is no question as to the meaning to unveil, uncover. But the
exegesis of v. 14, which says that the veil remains over the reading of the ‘‘old
covenant’’, is difficult. The AV translates, “until this day remaineth the same vail
untaken away’’; the RSV, “it remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it
taken away” (reading a comma after menei, “‘remains’’). P. Bachmann interprets the
words mé anakalyptomenon as an acc. absolute and translates: “without it being
revealed that (hoti) it (i.e. the “‘old covenant”’ as a way of salvation) has been done
away in Christ” (Der Zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 1922, 168). In any
case the thought which Paul wishes to convey is that for Christians the veils have
been removed which would prevent them from seeing ‘‘the light of the gospel of
the glory of Christ’ (4:4, 6). This is clear from v.18, where he goes on to give
expression to the assurance of Christian faith: “We all, with unveiled [anakekalym-
meno] face, beholding the glory of the Lord” (cf. H. D. Wendland, Die Briefe an
die Korinther, NT D 7, 1963, 157 ff.). The effect of this beholding is that the beholders
213
HIDE
are changed by the Lord, who is the Spirit (v. 17), into the likeness of the one whom
they behold (— See).
In contradiction to the statement of 2 Cor. 3:18 stands the verdict which,
according to 2 Cor. 4:3, opponents pass upon the Pauline gospel: the Pauline
gospel is “‘veiled”’ (kekalymmenon). In other words, it is obscure or contradictory.
Paul throws back the criticism in his opponents’ teeth by saying that it is veiled for
those who are perishing, for those who are unable to see the light of the gospel,
because they have been blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4). This judgment agrees with
the remarks about the unbelieving Jews which have been made in 2 Cor. 3:13.
4. In 1 Pet. 4:8 the readers are exhorted to love on the ground that love covers
(kalyptei) a multitude of — sins. In Jas. 5:20 the same grounds are given in an
exhortation to bring back a sinner from the error of his way (cf. also 1 Clem. 49:5;
2 Clem. 16:4). Probably what we have here is a catch-phrase which had its origin
in Prov. 10:12 (Heb. text). The epistles of Clement interpret it in the sense of
‘justification by works’’: love wins for him who practises it the forgiveness of his
sins. Another interpretation is possible, and more in keeping with the language
used. —> Love covers up, by means of the — forgiveness which it instils, a multitude
of sins in others. W. Mundle
| Kpinto ——_—| kK pvntw (krypto), hide, conceal; dzox pUmtw (apokrypto),
hes hide; Kpuntoc (kryptos), hidden, secret; dnxoKpvdoc
(apokryphos), hidden; xpudaioc (kryphaios), and k pvdioc (kryphios), hidden.
CL 1. krypto, to hide, conceal, fig. to keep secret, is attested in cl. Gk. from Homer.
From the Hel. aorist ekrybén (common in the LXX, e.g. Gen. 3:8) is derived
the vb. krybé, which has the same meaning (found in the NT only in the form
periekryben, she kept herself hidden [Lk. 1:24]). The derivative apokrypto (Homer)
has the same meaning. It is not possible to draw an absolute distinction between its
range of meaning and that of the similar vb. > kalypto, to hide. The same may
be said of the adjectives kryptos and apokryphos, hidden (Homer and 5th cent.
B.C. respectively). The group also includes the adv. kryphé, secretly (in the NT at
Eph. 5:12 only), and the adj. kryphaios, hidden, which is found only in biblical
usage (Jer. 23:24; Lam. 3:10; in the NT only at Matt. 6:18, par. to en to krypto,
in secret, vv. 4, 6). The noun krypté, vault, cellar, hidden corner (attested from 3rd
cent. B.c.), is found in the NT only at Lk. 11:33.
2. The hiddenness of the deity is not emphasized greatly in Gk. and Hel. religion.
Although the Hymn to Isis from Andros (lst cent. B.c.) speaks of the secret
(apokrypha) symbols of Hermes, and Iamblichus (3rd cent A.D.) mentions ta
krypta, the hidden things, of the goddess Isis (cf. Arndt, 93, 455; A. Oepke, kArypto,
TDNT Ill 961-6), the Hel. mystery religions are no exception. The most one can
say is that the word apokryphos, hidden, plays a great part in books of magic and
astrological texts. The biblical doctrine of God, with its awareness of his transcend-
dence and its emphasis on the unapproachability and hiddenness of God, is largely
foreign to Gk. and Hel. religion.
oT 1. In the LXX krypto is found in the lit. sense of to hide (e.g. Gen. 3:8, 10) as
well as in the fig. sense of to keep secret (e.g. Gen. 18:17; 1 Sam. 3:17, 18). It
represents various Heb. roots with the same basic meaning, e.g. haba’, to hide,
214
HIDE
conceal (Gen. 3:8, 10; | Sam. 14:11), kAd (piel), to hide, conceal (1 Sam. 3:17; cf.
A. Oepke, TDNT III 967). apokrypto, to hide, usually has the fig. meaning (Isa.
40:27; Wis. 6:22). The adj. kryptos is used in both the lit. and the fig. senses (2
Macc. 1:16; Deut. 29:29). apokryphos, hidden, is used in Isa. 45:3, 1 Macc. 1:23
and Dan. 11:43 of secret treasures. The expression en apokrypho, in secret, is also
found (e.g. Deut. 27:15; Ps. 10:8). |
2. (a) The hiddenness and unapproachability of God is depicted impressively in
the OT in the story of the call of > Moses. Moses is not allowed to approach the
God who has revealed himself to him in the burning bush, but turns his face away
(LXX apestrepsen); he is afraid of God’s face (Exod. 3:6; — God, oT 2). Similarly
the people do not dare to approach God at Sinai; Moses alone dares to go forward
into the darkness (Exod. 20:21).
The same basic concept is found in later writings. In the secret place of thunder
God hears his people’s cry of distress (Ps. 81:7). At the consecration of the temple
Solomon declared that God wishes to dwell in darkness (1 Ki. 8:12). This also
applies in the fig. sense to God’s hidden guidance: the painful misfortunes of Israel
are regarded as judgments of God in which his comfort remains hidden (Hos.
13:14). The God of Israel is a hidden God, and yet he remains the saviour. He
hides his face in wrath, but he returns to his people with everlasting — grace (Isa.
45:15; 54:8). Though Israel’s way may be hidden from God, it is not cut off from
the comfort of the Lord who gives power and strength to the weary (Isa. 40:27, 29).
(b) God hides himself from men, but man cannot hide from God. God is the
Lord who fills heaven and earth (Jer. 23:24). Everywhere man is surrounded by
God’s presence; God’s eye sees even in the darkness, nothing is hid from Him
(Ps. 139:7-12, 15; Sir. 39:19). To flee from God, as the case of Jonah shows (Jon.
1:3), is therefore a hopeless quest. Above all, human sin is not hidden from God
(Jer. 16:17). There is no gloom or darkness where evildoers can hide themselves
(Job 34:22; Sir. 17:15, 20). Sinful man is therefore threatened by God on every
side. Before this terrible God he must creep into the earth’s recesses (Isa. 2:10). To
him God is like a bear lying in wait or a lion in hiding (Lam. 3:10). And so Job
complains that God hides his face from him like an enemy (Job 13:24). Similarly
the psalmists complain that God hides his face from them and is far from them
(Pss. 10:1; 44:24); but man’s sin is not hidden from God (Ps. 69:5). The awareness
of personal guilt and distance from God finds strong expression in the Pss. All the
more urgent, therefore, is the plea made to God by the righteous: “Hide not thy
ear from my cry” (Lam. 3:56). Finally, the sighing of the righteous cannot remain
hidden from God (Ps. 38:9). He therefore must stand before God with his sin and
confess it; if he does not hide it, he can obtain God’s forgiveness (Ps. 32:5). He
asks this forgiveness also for hidden faults (Ps. 19:12). The psalmists know of the
gracious God in whose goodness they may find refuge (Ps. 27:5; 31:19-20). One
of the effects of this attitude of faith and trust is the desire to hide God’s command-
ments in one’s heart, i.e. to be their guardian (Ps. 119:11, 19).
(c) Thus in the OT expression is given in a variety of ways to the tension between
the hiddenness of God and his — revelation. As the hidden God, he reveals what
is hidden, the hidden things which concern the future (Dan. 2:22; Sir. 42:19; 48:25).
This opens up the way which leads to Jewish apocalyptic which has its beginning
in the book of Daniel. God is revealed also in his judgments, as the righteous —~
215
HIDE
judge who brings to light what is hidden (Eccl. 12:14; 2 Macc. 12:41). Thus he
reveals to Abraham the coming judgment on Sodom. Here it is hinted, but not
explicitly said, that he is the gracious God whose wrath does not continue for ever
(Gen. 18:23-33).
3. In Judaism of the NT period, the apocalyptic literature which continues the
tradition of the book of Daniel concerns itself a great deal with the hidden things,
especially in so far as they have to do with the future. In the Book of Enoch the
‘Son of Man” (— Son, art. hyios tou anthrépou), the “chosen one’’, will reveal all
the treasures of what is hidden, and all secrets of wisdom will proceed from the
thoughts of his mouth (Eth.Enoch 46:3; 51:3). The Qumran texts speak of a
secret knowledge of the will of God which remains hidden to outsiders and is
attainable only by the sect-community by way of the law and the prophets (1QS
4:6; 9:17; 11:6; 1QH 5:25; 8:10 f.). Even in Rab. Judaism the awareness of the
hiddenness of God and his mysteries does, not totally disappear (SB I 578 f., 659 f.),
but it is balanced by the conviction of the pious Jew that the full and valid — reve-
lation of God has been given him in the — law. The Jew, as characterized by
Paul, possesses in the law “the embodiment of knowledge and truth’ (Rom.
2:20); this fits him to be a guide to the blind and a light to those who are in darkness
(cf. Rom. 2:17—20).
NT |. In the NT krypté occurs 19 times, and apokrypto 4 times. In the parallel
passages, Matt. 11:25 = Lk. 10:21, Matt. uses Arypto and Lk. apokrypto. Of
the adjectives, kryptos occurs 17 times; apokryphos 3 times (Mk. 4:22;. Lk. 8:17;
Col. 2:3); kryphaios twice (Matt. 6:18, v.l. en to krypto). The sayings in Matt.
10:26 and Lk. 12:2 (8:17) are variations of the one in Mk. 4:22, ““There is nothing
hidden that shall not be made manifest.’ The parallelism of the sayings indicates
that no clear line of distinction can be drawn between the meanings of the words
above mentioned, nor indeed between them and the related — kalypto (cf. Lk.
23:30 with Rev. 6:16). The words are often used in their lit. sense: Matt. 13:44
mentions the treasure hidden in a field, while in the parable of the talents the
unfaithful servant hides his money in the earth (25:18, 25). Similarly the woman
hides the leaven in the flour (Matt. 13:33 enekrypsen; cf. Lk. 13:21). In a reference
to Exod. 2, Heb. 11:23 records the hiding of the child Moses after his birth.
2. Of theological significance are the sayings which deal with the hiddenness of
revelation and of the revelatory work of God. The — revelation which God gives
through Jesus to babes remains hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25
par. Lk. 10:21). The hiddenness of revelation corresponds to the hiddenness of
the —> kingdom of heaven. This is the message of the parables of the leaven and
of the hidden treasure (Matt. 13:33, 44). Just as the kingdom is hidden, so must
the disciples’ almsgiving, prayers and fasting, be done in secret; the Father who sees
in secret will —- reward them. Jesus emphasized this in the face of a type of piety
which sought to make a display of itself (Matt. 6:4, 6, 18). The passion predic-
tions of Jesus indicate that for the disciples the divine plan remains for the present
hidden; it is not revealed to them until after the resurrection (Lk. 18:34; cf. Mk.
9:32; Lk. 9:45). Similarly it is Jerusalem that failed to recognize the salvation which
Jesus desired to bring her: the things that made for her peace remained hidden
from her eyes (Lk. 19:42).
216
HIDE
The saying in Matt. 10:26 gives rise in v. 27 to the commission to the disciples
to spread the message: this is the way in which what has been hidden is to be made
known. This is the interpretation that Matthew gives to the purpose of parables:
they are intended to express what has been hidden since the foundation of the world
(Matt. 13:35, quoting Ps. 78:2). The message is not to be spread by word alone,
but also by the works of the disciples. The city set on a hill cannot be hid, and a
light is not placed under a bushel or in a hidden corner, but on the lampstand, so
that all may see it (Matt. 5:14 ff.; Lk. 11:33).
The Gospel of John says that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret (kekrymmenos)
disciple (19:38) for fear of the Jews. In contrast to this, Jesus confessed at his trial
before the high priest: “‘I have said nothing secretly” (Jn. 18:20). His task has been
to manifest the Father’s — name before men (Jn. 17:6). In apparent contradiction
to this attitude, Jn. 7:8-10 records that Jesus did not go up to Jerusalem, although
his brothers who did not believe in him urged him to do so. It was at the time of the
Feast of Tabernacles (7:2 ff.). He did not go to this festival, because his time was
not yet fulfilled. He went, but not until later and then secretly (vv. 8, 10). According
to Jn. 8:59 he hid from the Jews and left the temple when they tried to stone him.
When the Jews decided to put him to death, he no longer went about openly among
them, but went into hiding (11:54, apél/then, he went away). The reason for this is
given in Jn. 10:17, 18. Men cannot and must not be allowed to take his life from
him at their volition; Jesus gave it up on his own resolve, when his hour had come,
(Jn. 7:8; 13:1; 17:1). His action was determined by the relationship of love with
his heavenly Father with whom he is one (Jn. 10:17, 30). The hiddenness of Jesus
serves to expose his lack of dependence upon man, and his majesty and union with
God. It does not mean that the revelation of Christ is intended to remain hidden to
all, for Jesus is the — light of the world (Jn. 8:12). But it is given only to the disciples
(Jn. 17); unbelievers are subject to the judgment of total blindness (9:39).
3. (a) Paul declares that the apostolic message is the hidden wisdom of God
which God has ordained from all eternity for our glory (1 Cor. 2:7, apokekrym-
menen). It has its origin in divine — revelation (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:10; Gal.
1:12). Its content is Christ whom God has made — wisdom for us (1 Cor. 1:30); the
Spirit-inspired message brings us knowledge of God (1 Cor. 2:10 f.).
(b) Ephesians and Colossians carry these ideas still further. The message is the
secret hidden since the beginning of the world to former generations, but now
revealed to the saints (Col. 1:25 ff.), and the holy apostles and prophets (Eph.
3:5 ff.). It proclaims to us the Christ present in Christians and his unsearchable
riches (Col. 1:27; Eph. 3:8). In this Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom;
thus OT language about hidden treasures (see above OT 1) is interpreted as refer-
ring to Christ (Col. 2:3). Not only, however, does Christ bestow knowledge; he is
also the hidden life of the Christian. Christians are buried with him in — baptism,
and raised by faith to a new life. This life is hid with Christ in God (Col. 2:12; 3:3).
Therefore they can take no part in the “hidden things of shame” (2 Cor. 4:2), in
the works of darkness which take place in secret and yet cannot remain hidden
(Eph. 5:12; cf. 1 Tim. 5:25).
(c) In 1 Peter Christian women are called to a life with Christ: their holiness of
life is to be evident from the fact that they do not adorn themselves with costly
outward finery, but that their adornment is the “‘hidden person of the heart with the
217
HIDE
imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4). The mark of this
hidden person who conducts his or her life with Christ is a life of hope, submission
and fear of God (vv. 2, 5, 6).
4. (a) Paul describes the believing Christian in Rom. 2:29 as a “Jew inwardly
[en t6 krypto].”’ Through the — Spirit who has been given to Christians in faith
and guarantees their status as children of God (Rom. 8:15 ff.; Gal. 4:6), they have
received a circumcision of the — heart. This circumcision “‘made without hands”’
(Col. 2:11 f.) means that in — baptism they share in Christ’s burial and resurrec-
tion (cf. Rom. 6:3 ff.). Thus they become members of the true people of God. ‘‘For
we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus,
and put no confidence in the flesh’’, Paul writes to the Philippians (Phil. 3:3). The
Jew who is one outwardly (en to phanerd, Rom. 2:28) only relies on the circumci-
sion of the flesh. This circumcision proves that he is a member of the Jewish people,
—> Israel ‘according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18). In contrast to this is the “Israel
of God’”’ (Gal. 6:16), the church of Christ, to which the Christian may belong as a
member of the true people of God, as ‘“‘a Jew inwardly’’, even without belonging
outwardly to the Jewish people.
(b) Rev. 2:17 speaks of the ‘“‘hidden manna’’, the gift of the heavenly world.
Manna was the secret food provided by God which Israel received from heaven
on her journey through the wilderness (Exod. 16:4; Bread, art. manna). In
Jewish expectation (Syr.Bar. 29:8) it was to be given to Israel anew at the end of
the ages. This gift will be received by “Shim who conquers”, who retains through all
trials his loyalty to God. Ultimately this gift is Christ himself: he is the — bread
of God which comes down from heaven (Jn. 6:33 ff.).
(c) From all this it is clear that language about the hiddenness of God and of
divine things is connected with the NT’s forward look into the future. God is the
judge who will bring into judgment the secrets of men (Rom. 2:16), and will bring
to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the purposes of the heart (1 Cor.
4:5), just as the Spirit of God already at work in Christians discloses the secrets
of the heart (1 Cor. 14:25).
(d) Revelation takes up OT prophecies (Isa. 2:10 f.; Jer. 4:29; Hos. 10:8) and
describes how on the day of judgment the kings and great men of the earth will
have to hide in caves and clefts of the rocks: they will cry out to the mountains and
rocks, ‘‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of God and from the wrath of the
Lamb”’ (Rev. 6:15; cf. Lk. 23:30).
5. The idea of judgment is only one side of NT expectation concerning the future.
First and foremost the NT looks forward to the coming Lord: when Christ, the
hidden life of Christians, shall appear, then they will appear with him in glory
(Col. 3:3 f.). Then that knowledge which is here enjoyed only in part and which
cannot lift the veil of God’s hiddenness will no longer be obscure. It will no longer
be a matter of seeing “in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12), but will be turned into
sight, face to face. To see the — face of God is here no longer a ground for fear,
but the fulfilment of the Christian’s joyful hope.
6. (a) The word ‘“‘apocryphal”’ has passed into common usage because of the so-
called apocryphal literature (— Glossary of Technical Terms). This consists of
secret, hidden writings, which were not read out in church. The way was paved for
the appearance of this literature by the fact that in the NT period the authority
218
HIDE
of — Scripture, or the Scriptures, was already established, while the question of
which writings belonged to the authoritative, ‘““canonical’’ Scriptures was not yet
fully resolved. In 1 Cor. 2:9, for instance, Paul cites a passage which is not to be
found in our biblical texts, though it bears some resemblance to Isa. 64:4 (cf. also
65:17). According to some of the early Fathers (Origen on Matt. 27:4; Ambro-
siaster on | Cor. 2:9; and Jerome on Isa. 64:4), it was in the Apocalypse of Elijah
which has not come down to us except in a fragment which does not contain the
words. It was frequently quoted especially by gnostic writers and was ascribed to
Jesus by Act.Pet. 39 and Gos.Thom. 17. In Jude 14 the prophecy of Enoch is
mentioned, and a passage is cited from the apocryphal Apocalypse of Enoch
(Eth.Enoch 1:9). The mention of Jannes and Jambres, the magicians who opposed
Moses (2 Tim. 3:8) likewise presupposes the use of an apocryphal tradition (TDNT
III 990). In the canonical tradition their names are not mentioned (cf. Exod. 7:10ff.).
Later, from Jerome onwards (c. 380 A.D.), the title ““Apocrypha’”’ was limited to
those books included in the LXX and the Latin Vulgate which was based on it
which do not appear in the Heb. canon of the OT. The designation of these books
as apocryphal did not however settle finally the question of their canonicity. At the
Council of Trent (Session IV, 1546) the Roman Catholic Church pronounced
them canonical (cf. H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 19573", §§ 783 f.).
Luther declared them to be “‘good and useful to read’’, and with some reservation
included them in his translation of the Bible. The Church of England recognized
that the Church reads them “for example and instruction of manners; but yet doth
it not apply them to establish any doctrine”’ (Article VJ). In the Reformed Churches
of the Calvinistic tradition they were generally rejected; but the attitudes of the
various churches were not uniform. (See further The Cambridge History of the
Bible, I-III, 1963-70 [see indexes]; B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha
19698; R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,
I-II, [1913] 1963.)
It is important to note the distinction between the apocryphal literature and
apocalyptic writings, the subject of which is revelations about the events of the
last days (— Glossary of Technical Terms, art. Apocalyptic; —~ Revelation).
(b) In addition to the OT Apocrypha there is a body of NT Apocrypha, con-
sisting of those writings which are related to the NT either by literary form or by
date of origin. These include Apocryphal gospels and books of Acts, like the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Gospel
of Thomas, the Acts of Peter, Paul, John and Thomas, spurious Epistles like that
of Paul to the Laodiceans, books of revelation like the Apocalypse of Peter. (For
critical edition see E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament
Apocrypha, I-II, 1963-65.) Recent discoveries at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt
in 1946 have enriched our knowledge of this literature. These writings which arose
particularly in gnostic circles and which are fictional and wildly imaginative in
content, were sometimes rejected from the outset by the church, and sometimes
after a period of vacillation. (For texts see R. M. Grant, Gnosticism: An Anthology,
1961; and W. Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts, I, 1972; II, 1974.)
To the NT Apocrypha are sometimes (but mistakenly) reckoned the Apostolic
Fathers (1 and 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and other writings
[cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, I-V, 1889-90, one-volume ed., 1891
219
HIDE/HINDER
revised; C. C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers, 1953]). These books are
close to the NT in time, and to some extent in content. The fact that some of them
are to be found in ancient MSS of the Bible indicates that for a time there was
uncertainty as to whether they belonged to the NT. W. Mundle
—> Knowledge, — Revelation
(a). B. Altaner, Patrology, 1960, 47-96; S. Barabas, ‘“‘Apocrypha, Modern’, ZPEB I 213 ff.;
R. Bultmann, “Adam, where art Thou ?’’, in Essays Philosophical and Theological, 1955, 119-32;
and ‘“‘Concerning the Hidden and Revealed God”, in Existence and Faith, 1964, 25-38: The
Cambridge History of the Bible, I, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, 1970; II, ed. G. W. H.
Lampe, 1969; III, ed. S. L. Greenslade, 1963; R. H. Charles, Religious Developments between the
Old and New Testaments, 1914; R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament, I—II, (1913) 1963; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, 1965, 560-668;
M.S. Enslin, “‘Apocrypha, NT”, /DBI 166-69; C. T. Fritsch, “‘Apocrypha’’, DBI 161-66; E. J.
Goodspeed, Modern Apocrypha, 1956; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1970;
and “‘Apocrypha’’, ZPEB I 205-10; E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament
Apocrypha, I-III, 1963-65; M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 1924 and reprints;
R. McL. Wilson, ‘“‘Apocryphal New Testament”, ZPEB J 210-13; B. M. Metzger, An Introduction
to the Apocrypha, 1969°; A. Oepke, kalypto, TDNT III 556-92; A. Oepke and R. Meyer, krypto, —
TDNT III] 957-1000; R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the
Apocrypha, 1957; D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic 200 B.c.—-A.D. 100,
1964; D. M. Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography, 1949, 1969, 1971; C. C. Torrey, The Apocryphal
Literature, 1945; W. C. van Unnik, ‘‘With Unveiled Face’’, NovT 6, 1963, 153 ff.
(b). A. BOhlig and P. Labib, Koptisch-gnostische Apokalypsen aus Kodex V von Nag Hammadi,
1963; J. Godttsberger, ““Die Hiille des Mose nach Ex. 34 und 2 Kor. 3”, BZ 16, 1924, 1 ff.; SB III
427 ff.
For works on gnosticism — bibliography under Knowledge.
Hinder, Prevent, Forbid
Hindrances may take a variety of forms. They may be solid and physical (like
rocks) or psychological (like lack of insight). We may meet them suddenly all at
once or as a continuing impediment. They may affect a particular plan or our whole
being. The Gk. vbs. enkopto and kolyo correspond to this variety of meanings.
enkopto denotes a temporary (originally military) obstacle. kolyo, on the other hand,
generally signifies a human obstacle which frequently affects the whole person, and
in the NT specifically the relationship of the individual to God.
[eyxdnto éyKonta@ (enkopto), hinder, thwart; éyxomy (enkopé),
? hindering, hindrance; éyxomyv dlddval tivi (enkopén
didonai tini), hinder something.
CL & OT The vb. enkopto, composed of en- (in) and kopto (to strike), originally
meant to knock in or cut into. The meaning hinder arose out of its military use.
During a retreat the road might be cut into (i.e. broken up), in order to delay the
pursuing enemy. The noun enkopé therefore denoted originally merely a temporary
hindrance (cf. proskomma, — Offence), and only very late (Ist cent. B.C.) a per-
manent impediment. The vb. is followed by the dat. (in the NT by the acc., by
analogy with kdlyo). A following infin. is frequently in the gen. (to be translated
in the NT almost as a consecutive by “‘so that”’; Funk § 400, 4; cf. Rom. 15:22).
The following infin. is frequently accompanied by mé or mé ou, according to
220
HINDER
whether the expression is used positively, negatively or interrogatively, a usage
which seems to us pleonastic (Funk § 429; cf. Gal. 5:7). Neither vb. nor noun
occurs in the LXX. The vbs. of hindering in the OT do not have the special nuances
of enkopto.
NT The noun occurs once, and the vb. 5 times (3 times in Paul and once each in
Acts and |] Pet.). In the NT these words indicate an occurrence which hinders
progress in the realm of — faith or in the Christian life, bringing it to a standstill,
if not permanently at least for the moment. Such a hindrance is always of a kind
that can be overcome.
The — proclamation of the — gospel could thus have been hindered, if Paul had
allowed himself to receive money from the churches which came into being as the
result of his preaching (1 Cor. 9:12). This hindrance was not of permanent conse-
quence, but in particular cases was nontheless considerable. Therefore, Paul waived
his rights (exousia) which in themselves could not be contested. Again, Paul’s
mission in Rome was only delayed by the fact that he had to complete projects
which he had begun in other places (Rom. 15:22). Paul wanted to go to Thessa-
lonica, but the visit was repeatedly hindered by — Satan (1 Thess. 2:18). It is no
longer possible to determine what hindrances Paul classified as Satan’s work. It
might have been an illness (2 Cor. 12:7; cf. on this point Phil. 2:25-30) or the
machinations of the Jews (1 Thess. 2:15 f.).
In Gal. 5:7 the Christian life is compared to a race, the running of which is
hindered by false teachers. The true way of faith has been endangered by sectarian,
legalistic, gnostically inclined Jewish Christians (so W. Schmithals and K. Wegen-
ast; see bibliography), because they have perverted the gospel (1:7) and threaten
to destroy the unity of the church (4:17).
Insufficient — knowledge (art. gindskd; cf. B. Reicke, see bibliography) can also
act as a hindrance to men’s prayers (1 Pet. 3:7). The trouble here is that, under the
influence of prevailing pagan custom, men have tended to despise their wives
instead of recognizing them as partners. The passage has nothing to do with the
common prayers of married couples, nor with marriage as a hindrance to prayer.
Similar concepts of hindering occur in 1 Cor. 13:1 and 11:20—29 (where the vb. is
not used). In the former it is a lack of love which hinders effective preaching, and
in the latter a selfish lack of brotherly consideration which prevents the proper
celebration of the — Lord’s Supper.
The Aram. and Syriac versions and also the misleading ref. to Job 19:2 and
Isa. 43:23 (which have enkopon and not enkopén poiein) have resulted in the erro-
neous translation of enkopto as “‘weary” in Acts 24:4 (KJV, Moffatt). However,
the basic meaning of enkoptd makes good sense: “In order not to hinder you any
further [i.e. by this long speech from carrying out of your administrative duties]”’
(cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1952, 421; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the
Apostles, 1971, 653). Burden, delay or detain are also possible translations (G.
Stahlin, 7DNT III 855; Arndt, 215). C. H. Peisker
; Kw@Avw@ (kodlyd), hamper, hinder, prevent, restrain,
| Kova | forbid.
221
HINDER
cL The vb. kdlyo is attested from Pindar on. Although its etymology is obscure
(possibly from kolos, stunted), it originally meant to cut short, and then to
hinder, etc. It 1s used with a separative gen.: kdlyo tina tinos, hinder someone in
something (cf. Acts 27:43). In the NT the gen. is frequently replaced by apo (Funk
§180, 1; cf. Lk. 6:29). As in the case of enkopto, a following infin. is often in the
gen., in the NT always without mé (Funk § 429). There are familiar idioms such as
ti kolyei, why not? and ouden kolyei, proceed by all means (so far as I am concerned).
oT The vb. occurs approximately 33 times in the LXX. In 20 of these instances
there is no Heb. equivalent, as the passages occur in the Apocrypha. It also
occurs in a few Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Gr.Enoch, Aristeas, Test.XII) and in
Philo and Josephus. The LXX employs kdlyé most frequently to translate Heb.
kala (8 times); it stands also for mana‘ (3 times), and once each for Sib (hiph.) and
‘azar. The basic meaning is to hinder (cf. Ezek. 31:15; Job 12:15). It is used mostly
in the sense of to restrain, withold. The objects of this action can be people (Gen.
23:6; Num. 11:28; Ps. 119:101) and things (wind, water, Eccl. 8:8; Ezek. 31:15;
Job 12:15). The subject may be God (1 Sam. 25:26; Ezek. 31:15) or men (Moses,
Num. 11:28; the writer, Pss. 40:10; 119:101).
kolyo can denote holding back in secular contexts, where a man is the subject and
things are prevented, refused, denied or withheld (Gen. 23:6; Test. Sim. 2:12).
But it can be used in a religious sense, both with regard to its cause and effect. In
this case it is God, one of his servants or the righteous man who does the witholding.
Here kdlyo refers especially to the relationship of the people or of an individual to
God.
NT koélyo occurs 23 times in the NT of which 12 are in Lk. and Acts. Luke’s use
of the word is significant. Besides a purely secular use in connection with tax
evasion (Lk. 23:2), he has also a theological use. In Acts 16:6 Paul is prevented by
the Holy Spirit from preaching the gospel in the Roman province of Asia. By this
comment Luke intends to demonstrate God’s leading along the road towards
Europe. Here kélyo is used as a synonym for enkopto.
1. (a) From the point of view of the object, the hindering relates mostly to
people: soldiers are prevented from killing Paul (Acts 27:43); children are pre-
vented from coming to Jesus (Mk. 10:14 par. Matt. 19:14, Lk. 18:16); Paul was
prevented from going to Rome (Rom. 1:13) and from continuing his mission (1
Thess. 2:16). 1 Cor. 14:39 seems to be an exception, as it refers to speaking in
tongues. Even so, people are directly involved.
(b) Such hindrances can stem directly from a person: a Roman centurion (Acts
— 24:23; 27:43); disciples or a baptizing church (Mk. 10:14 par.); circumstances
(Rom. 1:13); or death (Heb. 7:23).
(c) The answer to the question, ““What is hindered ?”’ indicates clearly the domin-
ant theological use of the vb. Most frequently it is the preaching of the gospel that is
hindered (Acts 16:6; Rom. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2:16; in the widest sense, 1 Cor. 14:39).
Since service is also a form of proclamation, Lk. 6:29 (cf. Mk. 14:39; Matt. 26:42)
belongs to this context. Comparison of Lk. 11:52 with Matt. 23:13 reveals how the
two evangelists interpreted Jesus’ condemnation of the experts in the law: “But
woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of
222
HINDER/HOLY
heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would
enter to go in” (Matt.); ““Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of
knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were enter-
ing” (Lk.). Writing for Gentile readers, Lk. omits the words “‘kingdom of heaven’,
and interprets the denunciation in terms of witholding — knowledge.
2. It is striking that both Paul (e.g. Rom. 1:13) and Luke (cf. Acts 16:6) see the
ultimate origin of hindrances affecting Christians not in the actions of the people
concerned but in God himself (or the — Spirit of God, or Jesus). However, a
disciple’s own decisions and actions (whether in his dealings with his fellow men, or
more particularly in his marriage relationship) clearly affect whether his faith is
able to grow and develop, or whether it is constricted and hindered (cf. 1 Cor. 9:4,
7 ff.; 1 Pet. 3:7). The same applies to the church as a whole.
This leads to the question of witholding — baptism. As early as the Ist cent.,
when enquiries were made whether there were any obstacles in the way of a
candidate for baptism, kd/ydé became the technical term for the refusal of baptism
(O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, 1950, 75), and Mk. 10:14 par. Matt.
10:13 ff., Lk. 18:15 ff. were used in argument against scruples over infant baptism
(Cullmann, op. cit., 76 ff.; cf. Tertullian, De baptismo, 18). This may be due to the
use of kodlyé in connection with baptism in the NT (Acts 8:36; 10:47; 11:17)
and in early Christian baptismal texts (Gos.Eb.; Epiph., Haer. 30, 13, 8; Pseudo-
Clement, Homilies 13, 4, 1; 13, 11, 2). C. H. Peisker
(a). K. Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants ?, 1963; O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New
Testament, 1950; J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, 1960; and The Origins of
Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland, 1963; G. Stahlin, kopetos etc., TDNT Ul
830-60.
(b). J. Jeremias, “Mc. 10.13-16 Parr. und die Ubung der Kindertaufe in der Urkirche’, ZNW 40,
1941, 243 ff.; B. Rehm, Die griechisch-christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten vier Jahrhunderte, 1953;
B. Reicke, Die Gnosis der Manner nach | Petrus 3,7, BNZW 21, 1957?, 296 ff.; W. Schmithals, ‘‘Die
Haretiker in Galatien”, ZNW 47, 1956, 25 ff.; K. Wegenast, Das Verstandnis der Tradition bei
Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen, WMANT 8, 1962, 36 ff.
Holy, Consecrate, Sanctify, Saints, Devout
The expressions “‘holy” and “‘the holy” denoted at the beginning of the history of
religion power (mana), taboo, and then, generally the sphere of divine power which
man felt to be superior and threatening. The opposite of the holy was the profane,
the sphere of human life outside the realm of the holy. The roots of religion lie in
the efforts to separate the holy by means of cultic and ritual processes from the
desecration and contamination caused by the profane. The Greeks used three
different word-groups to denote the holy. hieros, with its numerous derivatives,
denotes the essentially holy, the taboo, the divine power, or what was consecrated
to it, e.g. sanctuary, sacrifice, priest. In contrast, hagios — the most frequent word-
group in the NT —contains an ethical element. The emphasis falls on duty to
worship the holy. hosios also points in this direction. On the one hand, it indicates
divine commandment and providence; on the other, human obligation and morality.
223
HOoLy
= dyloc (hagios), holy, sacred; ayid¢@ (hagiazo), make holy,
GYIOC | ae :
consecrate, sanctify; ayiagudc (hagiasmos), holiness,
consecration, sanctification; ayidtyc¢ (hagiotés), holiness; ayiwavvn (hagidsyne),
holiness; aylagua (hagiasma), sanctuary; aylagty piov (hagiastérion), sanctuary.
CL There is no certain etymology for hagios. It is related to hazomai (from hagiomai)
which is not found in the LXX or the NT, meaning to stand in awe of the gods
or one’s parents, e.g. Apollo (Homer, //. 1, 21), and also to respect, e.g. of Zeus
who respects those who stand under the protection of Pallas (Aesch., Eumenides
1002). Used metaphorically, it occurs in the expression: “‘it does not fill me with
dread of death’ (Eur., Orestes 1116). Negatively, it means to be filled with holy
anger (Eur., Frag. 348). Accordingly, the adj. hagios would suggest less the taboo
than the holy which was worthy of worship. hagios is not found in Homer, Hesiod
or the tragedians who use the related hagnos (—> Pure) in a sense which corresponds
very closely with the OT gad6s. Its connection with hagios is uncertain and perhaps
improbable (cf. TDNT I 88).
hagios is found from Hdt. on, e.g. the shrine (hiron) of Aphrodite is holy (2, 41);
an oath is also holy (Aristot., Mirabilia 834b 11). People, too, can be described as
holy (Aristoph., Birds 522; despite TDNT I 88). Hellenism used the word as an
epithet describing oriental gods (Isis, Serapis, Baal; TDNT I 89), whence it was
also transferred to Gk. gods.
Beside hagios we find hagizd, consecrate, from which by extension hagiazo is
formed. The latter, with its derivatives hagiasma, sanctuary, holiness, hagiasmos,
holiness, hagiastérion, sanctuary, occurs chiefly in the LXX. The late nouns hagiotés
and hagidsyné, holiness (also chiefly in the LXX), are derived from hagios. hagios
was not particularly frequent in Gk. apart from the LXX. It was doubtless used as
the equivalent of Heb. gad6s, because it expressed, in contrast to — hieros, not
the holy in and of itself, but the challenge to worship which issues from the holy.
oT In the LXX only hagiazo, hagiasma, and hagios play any part. hagiasmos
(without a clear Heb. equivalent), hagiastérion (4 times [3 times for Heb.
migdas|), hagiotés (only 2 Macc. 15:2) and hagidsyné (5 times) are also found.
The word-group serves predominantly to translate Heb. gadé6s and its derivatives.
In addition there are the (rare) occurrences of nazir, Nazirite, to be considered.
The decisive element in the OT concept of the holy, in contrast to the profane
(hol; cf. hillél, defile), is not so much the awesome divine power. Rather, through
certain places, objects or occasions men enter into relatively direct contact with the
divine power which can be awesome, if men treat it ina profane way (1 Sam. 6:20).
The basic idea is not that of separation (though this is favoured by some scholars,
cf. N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944, 24 ff.), but the
positive thought of encounter which inevitably demands certain modes of response.
Although Heb. worship was particularly concerned with this encounter, the sphere
of the holy was wider than the cult. The holy is therefore a pre-ethical term. On
the other hand, it is a concept which posits ethical values. This ethic is not the first
stage of human morality, but the expression of the holiness of Yahweh in a world
of both similar and different sacred practices. For example, sexual intercourse is
in no way immoral. But compared with sacred practices, it is a profane act which
224
HoLy
therefore makes one impure for coming into contact with the holy (1 Sam. 21:4 ff.
[MT 5 ff.]; Exod. 19:15).
]. (a) The word group does not occur frequently in the oldest sources. Yahweh
is once called “this holy God”’ by the Philistines, because they were exposed to
great disaster when they did not show proper respect for the ark of the — covenant
(1 Sam. 6:19 f.). Although the OT mentions many cultic centres, only twice are
places described as holy (Gilgal-Jericho, Jos. 5:15) or as holy ground (Exod. 3:5,
the call of Moses; — God, oT 2). 2 Ki. 4:9 takes us out of the sphere of the cultus.
The Shunammitess recognized Elisha, the man of God, as holy, i.e. like Samson
full of sacred power (Jdg. 13:7; 16:17).
(b) The use of the vb. to make holy, or sanctify, is more uniform in the context of
its setting than the noun and the adj. A man sanctified himself, when he had been
temporarily excluded from the life of the community by uncleanness (2 Sam. 11:4),
or when he came into contact with God (theophany, Exod. 19:10 ff.; holy war,
1 Sam. 21:5 ff.; family sacrifice at which Yahweh was the highest-ranking relative,
1 Sam. 16:5). One could also sanctify people (1 Sam. 7:1, to the priesthood) or
things (Jos. 6:19, Jdg. 17:3 etc., silver; 1 Ki. 8:64, the temple forecourt) and thus
place them at God’s disposal. It is important also to mention that the LXX trans-
lates the expression ‘“‘a Nazirite to God” (Samson, Jdg. 13:7; 15:17) by “a holy
one of God.” As Num. 6:1 ff. shows, the case of the Nazirite is a special form of
consecration.
(c) One can only surmise that the rise of the great royal sanctuaries (Jerusalem,
Bethel) occasioned in turn an extension of the use of the word holy. Little is known
of this process. 1 Sam. 21:4 mentions holy bread; Jer. 11:15 holy sacrificial flesh.
Part of the piety of the Pss. probably belongs here. The Psalmist speaks of Yahweh’s
holy — temple (Ps. 5:7 [MT 8] and often), of the holy hill (3:4 [MT 5]; 15:1), of
holy Zion (2:6), of the holy court (29:2 LXX, RSV “‘array’’), and also of holy
heaven (20:6 [MT 7]), or the holy height from which Yahweh hears (102:19 [MT
20]), and correspondingly of his holy throne (47:8 [MT 9]). Yahweh is terrible and
holy (99:3). None of the gods is holy as he is, for none casts down the exalted and
raises the humble as he does (1 Sam. 2:2).
2. Prophetic polemic was scarcely directed against objects and practices which
are described as holy. This is possibly connected with the wider application of the
term holy. This is illustrated by the thought expressed in Ps. 24:3 f.: ““Who shall
stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not
lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully.”’ This suggests that,
from the outset, self-consecration in the cult and the holy were never purely ritualis-
tic matters but were concerned with one’s way of life.
(a) This is clearly the case in Amos. 2:7 and 4:2. Hos. 11:9 has perhaps a
similar message. Yahweh, the Holy One in the midst of his people, is nonetheless
not a destroyer or demon, even when the people had been guilty of great profanity.
The Holy One intends purification through a devastating catastrophe. His purpose
is not destruction, but a new future for Israel. The use of the term is vividly illus-
trated in Isa. After the thrice-repeated “‘holy” of the heavenly attendants Isaiah
acknowledged himself to be a man of unclean lips, whereupon his guilt was taken
away and his sin covered (6:3—7). The passage contains the special Isaianic expres-
sion ‘‘the Holy One of Israel” which is used particularly in two contexts. (i) Instead
225
HOLy
of leaning on the Holy One of Israel, the people have relied on horses and chariots
(31:1; cf. 30:15; 10:20). But as the Holy One, Yahweh himself intends to obtain
justice in war for his people. (ii) The sinful people, laden with guilt, has despised
the Holy One of Israel (1:4; cf. 30:12 f.) and will therefore be smitten by him.
(b) Another aspect of holiness occurs in the Deuteronomic formula “the holy
people.” In so far as the people are holy to Yahweh, their God (Deut. 7:6; 14:2, 21;
26:19), the formula explains their separation from the practices and cult objects
of foreign religions (e.g. 14:21, not eating what dies of itself; 7:5, destroying altars,
Asherim, graven images, etc.). As, in the last analysis, it is the whole Torah that
distinguishes Israel from the foreign nations, Deut. 26:18 f. declares that through
keeping the whole Torah Israel will become a people holy to Yahweh. The under-
lying thought here finds particularly fine expression in the ““Law of Holiness” (Lev.
17-26). Lev. 19 which probably combines groups of laws of different kinds is
headed, “‘You shall be holy for I am holy”’ (v. 2; cf. also 20:7).
(c) Jeremiah made very little use of the word group. However, Jer. 1:5 is import-
ant: Yahweh consecrated Jeremiah from his mother’s womb to be a prophet to the
nations. The words occur much more frequently in Ezek. Special mention may be
made of the phrase to show oneself holy before someone. With the exception of
Ezek. 28:22 (judgment on Sidon), it always refers to the house of — Israel (i.e.
Judah). The clearest example is Ezek. 36:23. Yahweh’s — name has been profaned
through the scattering of the people, and the exiles have contributed to its further
profanation. But when Yahweh gathers his people from the four corners of the
earth, he will manifest himself in them before all the nations as the Holy One, and
the nations will acknowledge that he is Yahweh. This means that they will recognize
Yahweh as God, even if he were not their own God.
(d) If the manifestation of holiness here means the salvation of Judah, the same
idea is plainly expressed in Isa. 40-55 especially in the title “‘the Holy One of Israel.”
The Holy One, the Creator of Israel (45:11; cf. 43:15), who will redeem Israel out
of slavery like a kinsman (43:14), is at the same time the Creator of the world and
the Lord of the nations (40:25). As such he is sufficiently removed from his people
to punish them without bias, but he is also sufficiently powerful, after the punish-
ment, to create something utterly new. Therefore nations will run to the Holy One
of Israel, because he will glorify Israel (55:5).
3. By far the most extensive occurrences of the word group are to be found in
the cultic, ritual texts which many scholars trace back to the exilic and post-exilic
periods (Exod. 25—Num. 10; Ezek. 40-48; and parts of 1 and 2 Chr.).
(a) Everything which belongs to the realm of the cultus is holy. There are nu-
merous holy occasions (e.g. the great — feasts, new moons, — sabbaths, year of
jubilee). All the objects which serve the cultus are also holy (e.g. + temple, tent
and ark, altars and their equipment, — first fruits, anointing oil, —> incense). In the
ritual of the oath, holy — water is used (Num. 5:17). The temple has holy —> money
(Exod. 28:2 ff.); the priests have holy garments (Exod. 28:2 ff.); the high priest a
breast plate with the inscription ““Holy to Yahweh’’. Sometimes holiness can be
thought of almost physically: it is transferred by contact (Exod. 29:37; 30:29) and
improper contact can be fatal (Num. 4:15, 20). Similarly uncleanness is also trans-
ferable (Hag. 2:11 ff.). As purity is the proper characteristic of everything that is
226
HoOLy
holy (— Pure), it is the duty of everyone who takes part in the cultus to be pure
(to sanctify oneself). Whoever is unclean must quickly take steps to purify himself.
There are also holy people (— priests, — Levites, Nazirites) and the holy anointing
of the Davidic kings (Ps. 89:20 [MT 21]; cf. 1 Sam. 24:6 [MT 7]). A distinction
can be drawn between the holy and the holiest. The sense of this distinction,
however, is less a gradation of the holiness which derives from God than a grada-
tion of human dealings with the Holy One.
(b) An important factor for understanding this strictly ordered cultic holiness,
which for the most part must have been priestly knowledge, is that it received its
significance, not from itself, but from a changed awareness in the post-exilic period.
This awareness was stamped, on the one hand, by a passionate determination to be
obedient, and, on the other, by the experience of catastrophic guilt which demanded
the most meticulous care in dealings with the Holy One. This care does not contra-
dict Hos. 6:6 (‘I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice’’), but is the ancient cultic
means of letting the — fear of Yahweh be the beginning of all wisdom.
(c) Three additional details should be noted. (i) Occasionally the term hagioi,
holy ones, saints, stands for heavenly companions of God (e.g. Dan. 7:21 ff.; ina
different sense 7:18). (ii) Only rarely are the members of the holy nation called
saints or holy. In a late wisdom Ps. saints are mentioned in parallel to those who
fear Yahweh (34:9 [MT 10] — Convert; cf. 16:3, where the context is unfortu-
nately corrupt). In Dan. 7:18 they are those who stand by their God in the war
between Yahweh and the world powers, and receive the kingdom. (111) On only
three occasions is Yahweh’s — Spirit called holy (Ps. 51:11 [MT 13]; Isa. 63:10 f.).
In Isa. 63:10 f. the Spirit referred to is the Spirit whom God put among his people
in the exodus but whom Israel has grieved through rebellion.
4. (a) Inter-Testamental Judaism introduced no real innovations into this scheme
of holiness, apart from the fact that the Scriptures were now also called holy
(1 Macc. 12:9; — Writing). Insignificant as this change might appear, it was never-
theless revolutionary. For from now on the Scriptures were to form the new
pivotal point for the system of holiness in Judaism, thereby replacing the — temple.
This process was, admittedly, only completed in the Rab. writings with their theory
of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit who speaks in the Scriptures (TDNT VI 382 f.,
385 f.). Hence, the pupils of the scribes (the holy — People) and those who obeyed
the Torah were in particular regarded as holy (SB II 691 ff.). Meanwhile, as it was
not the system of temple holiness that played the decisive role in every-day life but
the exposition of the Torah in terms of wisdom determined by the scribes, holiness
focussed more and more upon daily life. Nevertheless, temple holiness which was
commanded in the Scriptures and which became a kind of religious rule was not
neglected.
(b) An important feature was the slow development of the term ‘‘the saints’’ for
the members of the Jerusalem cultic community. 1 Macc. 1:46 is significant:
Antiochus’ men wanted to profane the sanctuary and the saints, i.e. those who were
true to the law and had by their suffering demonstrated that they steadfastly
belonged to Yahweh. The same situation of suffering no doubt lies behind Tob.
12:15: the holy ones (angels) present to God the prayers of the saints.
(c) The book of Enoch and the Qumran corpus indicate a further extension of
22)
HOLy
the term. Eth.Enoch 48:8 f. pronounces judgment on the mighty ones of the earth
who will be delivered into the hands of the elect. “As straw in the fire so shall they
burn before the face of the holy: As lead in the water shall they sink before the
face of the righteous, And no trace of them shall any more be found.”’ The context
shows that it is suffering that qualifies the righteous as holy who will be vindicated
in due course (cf. v. 7).
(d) In Qumran the community saw itself as the eschatological, priestly com-
munity of the saved in which the ordinances of purification which were originally
obligatory only for the priests were made binding for all the members. The concept
of holiness plays a big part in the Qumran texts especially in expressions of self-
designation. The community described itself as “‘the saints of his people’’ (e.g.
1QM 6:6), God’s “‘holy people” (1QM 14:12), “men of holiness” (1QS 8:13 etc.),
and the “‘remnant of holiness” (1QS 8:21). It is the eschatological temple, “‘a House
of Holiness for Israel, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron” (1QS 8:5 ff.).
Its members formed a unity with the heavenly community of — angels who were
likewise called ““Holy Ones” (cf. 1QS 11:8, 1QH 11:12). Thus there prevailed at
Qumran a priestly concept of holiness in which the temple cult was replaced by
special ways of obedience to the Torah such as washing, cultic meals, and espe-
cially observance of the calendar (1QS 9:3 ff.).
NT When we leave the realm of the OT and enter that of the NT, two facts stand
out. First, God is only seldom described as holy (Jn. 17:11; 1 Pet. 1:15f.;
Rev. 4:8; 6:10), and Christ is only once called holy in the same sense as God (Rev.
3:7; cf. 1 Jn. 2:20). The concept of holiness in the NT is determined rather by the
Holy — Spirit, the gift of the new age.
Secondly and following from this, the proper sphere of the holy in the NT is not
the cultus but the prophetic. The sacred no longer belongs to things, places or rites,
but to the manifestations of life produced by the Spirit. But since prophecy did
not readily lend itself to the building up of a corporate consciousness, as time went
on use was made of the holy priesthood (— Priest) and the royal priesthood of all
the saints. Hence cultic, sacral conceptions of holiness were again extensively taken
up in the early church.
1. (a) A number of passages remain entirely within the framework of OT tradi-
tion: God’s — name is called holy (Lk. 1:49), also his — covenant (Lk. 1:72; cf.
1 Macc. 1:15, 63), his — angels (Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Acts 10:22; Jude 14; Rev.
14:10), his attendants (Eph. 2:19; Col. 1:12; 1 Thess. 3:13; Rev. 18:20), the —
Prophets (Lk. 1:70), and the — Scriptures (Rom. 1:2), especially the — law (Rom.
7:12). Matt. 23:17, 19; 24:15; 27:53 and Lk. 2:23 are concerned entirely with the
Jewish cultus.
(b) The synoptic tradition introduces the specifically NT emphasis. Jesus was
addressed by the demons as “‘the Holy One of God’’ (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34). In the
LXX this title occurs only in Jdg. 13:7 and 16:17 and means that the bearer has
been filled by the holy. This expression indicates that Jesus was endowed at his
—> baptism with the Holy — Spirit and was driven into the wilderness for forty
days by the Spirit, like one of the ancient prophets or a Nazirite, before he per-
formed his first miracle (Mk. 1:21 ff.). We find probably the same concept in
Lk. 1:35: “‘the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” As Samson
228
HOLY
was a holy one of God from his mother’s womb (Jdg. 13:7), Jesus was holy from
his conception, i.e. filled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Mk. 6:20 of John the Baptist).
A somewhat different, but analogous, idea can be recognized in Acts 4:27 (cf.
3:14), where Jesus is called God’s “holy servant’’ (— Son of God, art. pais theou).
The inhabitants of Jerusalem have rejected him, as they had always denied and
killed the prophets in the past (7:51 f.). In all these cases holy means belonging
to God and authorized by God. Hence, resistance to Jesus is equivalent to resistance
to God. H. Seebass
(c) The first petition of the Lord’s Prayer contains the words: “‘Hallowed be thy
name [hagiasthéto to onoma sou] (Matt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2). The vb. appears only here
and at Matt. 23:17, 19 in the Synoptic Gospels. ““To ‘hallow’ the name (i.e. the
nature of God as known through his self-revelation in history) means, not only to
reverence and honour God, but also to glorify him by obedience to his commands,
and thus prepare the coming of the Kingdom’’ (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew,
1972, 136). J. Jeremias links the petition with the Kaddish, an ancient Aramaic
prayer which formed the conclusion of the synagogue service and which he be-
lieves Jesus knew from childhood. Jeremias reconstructs the prayer as follows:
‘“‘Exalted and hallowed be his great name in the world which he created according
to his will. May he let his kingdom rule in your lifetime and in your days and in the
lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily and so on. And to this say: amen”’
(The Prayers of Jesus, 1967, 98). According to Jeremias, the first two petitions of
the Lord’s Prayer make entreaty for the revelation of God’s eschatological king-
dom. “‘Every accession to power by an earthly ruler is accompanied by homage in
words and gestures. So it will be when God enters upon his rule”’ (ibid. ; cf. Rev. 4:8;
11:17; 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; Ezek. 36:23). The petitions are a cry from the
depths of distress. From a world enslaved by evil, death and Satan, the disciples
are to lift their eyes to the Father and cry out for the revelation of his glory, know-
ing in faith that he will grant it. According to Ernst Lohmeyer, the sanctification
prayed for is both positive and negative. “First, it means the abolition of everything
in the sensory realm contradictory to God’s holiness —for the only one who is
holy in his being and his actions is the one who, like the angels in the service of
God, matches his actions with his being and his being with his actions. So, secondly,
it means the elevation and therefore the consummation of all human and historical
being in the holiness of God: ‘You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is
perfect.’ This process of sanctification also leads beyond itself, for its ultimate end
is not the sanctification of the world through God, but the sanctification of God
through the world. Even the world and mankind are only elements in the process
of sanctification in which God sanctifies himself”? (The Lord’s Prayer, 1965, 73;
cf. Matt. 5:48; Hab. 2:14; Num. 14:21; Isa. 11:9). C. Brown
2. (a) In the Pauline epistles those who name Jesus as their Lord are called hoi
hagioi, the saints. This was primarily not an ethical expression but a parallel to
concepts like “‘called’? (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), “elect”? (Rom. 8:33;
Col. 3:12) and ‘faithful’ (Col 1:2). It implies association with the Holy Spirit.
Christ is their sanctification as well as their righteousness and redemption (1 Cor.
1:30), and thus the One in whom they become holy to the true God. “You were
229
HOLY
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:1 f.). From
the resurrection on, Jesus is the Christ in the power which operates according to
the Spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4). Holiness is a condition of acceptance at the
parousia and of entering upon the inheritance of God’s people (Col. 1:12; Acts
20:32; 26:18). In all these cases holiness implies a relationship with God which is
expressed not primarily through the cultus but through the fact that believers are
‘led’? by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14). As in the OT, holiness is a pre-ethical term.
At the same time, as in the OT, it demands behaviour which rightly responds to the
Holy Spirit.
(b) Sanctification is like the growth of fruit which results in eternal life (Rom.
6:19-22; cf. 1 Thess. 4:3-7). Spiritual, rational worship is the offering of oneself
as a living, holy sacrifice, acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1). The saints are not simply
“nice” and worthy people. They are those who are called, and an essential aspect
of sanctification is love for all the saints (Eph. 1:15), standing by them in need
(Rom. 12:13), and not profaning the sacred by bringing disputes with fellow-
believers before secular authorities, but allowing the saints to judge them (1 Cor.
6:1 f.). In Paul’s judgment, a non-Christian marriage partner does not profane the
Christian. On the contrary, the non-Christian partner is sanctified by the Christian,
just as the children of the marriage are also sanctified (1 Cor. 7:14). Because it is
God himself who sanctifies (1 Thess. 5:23), bearing fruit unto sanctification is all
the more important (Rom. 6:22; cf. Phil. 2:12-16).
3. (a) Heb. presents a highly specialized aspect of holiness. Christ, as the high
priest, is the one who sanctifies his people (13:12; 2:11), and officiates in a sanctuary
not made with hands (9:24; 8:2). The division of Israel’s earthly sanctuary (ta
hagia) into Holy Place and Holy of Holies (9:2 f.) shows that ultimate access to the
sanctuary has not yet been achieved. But Christ has entered the sanctuary once for
all with the gift of his blood and has achieved eternal redemption (9:12; 10:14).
His self-offering makes absolute the animal sacrifices of the temple. By the will of
God ‘‘we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once for all’? (10:10). But Heb. warns us, “since we have confidence to enter the
sanctuary”’ (10:19), not to defile the blood of the covenant, through which each
one has been sanctified; “for we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will
repay.’ And again, “The Lord will judge his people’ ” (10:29 f.; cf. Deut. 32:35 f.).
Therefore we are to strive for peace with all men and the holiness without which
no one can see God (12:14). Conversely, the holy brethren (3:1) are to recognize the
discipline which God applies as a help, for God disciplines in order that we may
win a share in his holiness (hagiotés, 12:10; cf. Prov. 3:11 f.).
(b) 1 Pet. is particularly significant in the further development of the concept.
To the idea of sanctification by the Spirit (1:2) there is added the blunt warning,
‘“‘As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignor-
ance, but as he who has called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct”
(1:14 f.; cf. Lev. 19:2). This is continued in 2:5: “and like living stones be your-
selves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacri-
fices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Thus the dynamic of the outpouring
of the Spirit is here restated in terms of the holy functions of the priesthood.
H. Seebass
230
HOLY
(c) Believers are again seen as — priests in Rev. 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6: But Rev.
also depicts the future abode of Christians as the holy city, the new — Jerusalem
(21:2, 10; 22:19). The most significant feature of Jerusalem was the fact that it
contained the — temple, the focal point of meeting between God and man. But in
the new Jerusalem there is no temple, “‘for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty
and the Lamb” (21:22). These pictures present both a continuity with the divinely
appointed institutions of Israel and a radical break with the historic Israel. It has
been argued that to see the church in such institutional terms represents an insti-
tutionalizing of the dynamic, charismatic character of the primitive Christian
community. In so doing the church was guarding itself against the type of excesses
which befell the church at Corinth. But the use of this imagery has a more signifi-
cant function. On the one hand, its application to the church means that the historic
institutions in Israel are now obsolete. On the other hand, the use of the concepts
of priest, temple and holy city in this dynamic and spiritual way affords a perspec-
tive to the suffering, persecuted church which enables it to see its situation and role
in terms of God’s purposes.
(d) In the Fourth Gospel the adj. hagios is used only of the — Father (Jn. 17:11
in the high priestly prayer of Jesus in the address “Holy Father’’), the — Spirit
(“‘this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’’, 1:33; the — ‘‘advocate”’ or “‘para-
clete”’, 14:26; ‘‘He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ ’’,
20:22), and the — Son (6:69). This latter passage occurs in Jn.’s account of Peter’s
confession. In Jn. Jesus is not confessed as the Christ (cf. Matt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29;
Lk. 9:20) with all its Jewish overtones, but as the ‘““Holy One of God [ho hagios tou
theou]’ (cf. L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 1971, 388 ff.). The expression
is rare. It occurs in the NT only in the address of the demoniac at Capernaum
(Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:24; cf. Pss. 16:10; 106:16). Although Jn. was thoroughly
aware of Jewish christology (1:39 ff., 49 ff.; 4:25; 10:36; 12:13; 20:31; cf. C. H.
Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 228 ff.; E. M. Sidebottom,
The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 1961, 70 f.), he apparently refrains from giving an
accepted christological title here. Nevertheless, the fact that he uses the epithet
“holy” elsewhere only of the Father and the Spirit sets Jesus with God and not
man. The expression “the Holy One”’ strikingly occurs in the only instance of hagios
in the Johannine epistles: ‘“But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and
you all know” (1 Jn. 2:20). The reference is evidently to the Holy Spirit, but the
context closely links this with the Father and the Son (cf. vv. 22 ff.).
The vb. hagiazo occurs 4 times in Jn. and is absent from the Johannine epistles.
In the first instance it denotes the special consecration of Jesus to do the will and
work of the Father, but its goal is that men might also be consecrated to do God’s
will. As such, it extends the use of the adj. In reply to the Jews who were about to
stone him for blasphemy (“‘because you, being a man, make yourself God’’, 10:33;
cf. Lev. 24:16), Jesus pointed to the extension of the word “‘God”’ to men in the OT
(10:34; cf. Ps. 82:6) but carefully avoided the title “God” for himself. Instead,
he asked: “‘Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated [hégiasen] and sent
into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ ?”
(10:36), and went on to claim to be doing the work of the Father. In the high priestly
prayer Jesus prayed: “‘Sanctify [hagiason] them in the truth; thy word is truth. ...
And for their sake I consecrate [hagiaz6] myself, that they also may be consecrated
231
HOLY
[hégiasmenoi| in truth’”’ (17:17, 19). Leon Morris draws attention to the use of
hagiazo in the LXX for the sanctifying of priests (e.g. Exod. 28:41; 29:1, 21) and
sacrifices (e.g. Exod. 28:38; Num. 18:9). ““He set Himself apart for the doing of
the Father’s will, and in this context this must surely mean death. It points us to
Calvary and all that Calvary means. This is connected with the disciples in two
ways. It is ‘for their sakes.’ He dies for them, to do for them that which they could
not do for themselves. And further it is ‘that they themselves also may be sanctified
in truth.’ He dies with a view to the disciples being sanctified, being set apart for
God” (op. cit., 731 f.; cf. also E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey,
19472, 502 ff.). On — truth see Jn. 1:17 and 3:21; cf. L. Morris, op. cit., 293 ff.
Doing the will of God is also doing the truth (cf. Ps. 119:142 LXX). To do this,
men need to be consecrated, as the context of all these pronouncements in Jn. make
clear. C. Brown
eae iepoc (hieros), holy; iepateia (hierateia), priestly office or
service; igépateva (hierateud), hold or perform the office
of a priest; ig povpyéq (hierourgeo), perform holy service, act as a priest; iepatevyia
(hierateuma), priesthood; ieponpennc (hieroprepés), befitting a holy person or
thing; ispooviAéw (hierosyled), rob temples; igpd@vtoc (hierothytos), devoted,
sacrificed to a divinity; iepevc (hiereus), priest; apyiepevc (archiereus), high priest;
ta igpda (ta hiera), sacrifice; iepa@atyvy (hierdsyné), priestly office, priesthood;
TO igpov (to hieron), sanctuary, temple.
The words derived from hieros not only form a common group philologically, but
are also related internally in their meaning. They are therefore treated all together
in the CL section. In the or and NT sections, the reader is referred to the article on
Priest for words connected with priesthood.
CL hieros is that which is determined, filled or consecrated by divine power. In
contrast to — hagios, holy, — hosios, devout, pious, and semnos, revered,
august (—> Godliness, art. sebomai), all of which contain an ethical element, hieros
denotes what is holy in and of itself, quite apart from any ethical judgment.
It is not used of the gods themselves, but of their activities. The expression hieron
genos athanaton, holy race of immortals (Hesiod, Theog. 21), reflects the idea that
the race of the immortals represents in the universe the realm of the absolutely
holy. Thus hieros means: (a) what belongs to the sphere of the gods; (b) what has
been sanctified by the gods; (c) what has been consecrated to the gods.
1. (a) Among objects described as holy are the head of Zeus (Homer, J/. 15, 39) and
his bed (Hesiod, Theog. 57), the abode of the gods (the snowy regions of Olympus,
Aristoph., Nubes 270), the scales of Kronos (Homer, //., 16, 658), the bow of
Hercules (Soph., Phil. 943), and the chariot of Achilles to whom the son of Kronos
had granted divine horses (Homer, //. 17, 464).
(b) The gods sanctified, e.g., the light (Hesiod, Works 337), the air, night and
day (Homer, //. 8, 66; 11, 194), the earth (Soph., Phil. 706), fruitful ground (Aris-
toph., Nubes 282), the rivers and streams poured out by Zeus (Homer, Od. 10,
232
HoOLy
351), the threshing-floor, because it is sacred to Demeter (Homer, //. 5, 499), the
fish consecrated to Poseidon (Homer, J//. 16, 407), and also cities like [lium,
Pergamum, Thebes, Athens, islands like Euboea and even the Hellespont. Similarly,
people are said to be hieroi, because they possess a trait which comes from the gods.
This is illustrated by phrases like hieron menos Alkinooio or hieré is Télemachoio
(Homer, Od. 7, 167; 2, 409); Alcinous received his power from Zeus and Tele-
machus his might from Athene. In Pindar, Pyth. 5, 97, kings are called hieroi,
because they received their sovereignty from the gods. But Democritus said of the
poet that he writes through divine afflatus and sacred inspiration, met’ enthousias-
mou kai hierou pneumatos (Frag. 18). From the time of Augustus (63 B.C.—A.D.
14) the Roman emperor was addressed by the title hieros. Not only his person but
everything connected with him came to be counted as hieros, because it had been
sanctified by the gods, e.g. the hiera grammata, the imperial decrees (cf. G. Schrenk,
T DNT III 225).
2. (a) The thought of consecration to the gods leads into the realm of the cultus
which was the decisive general factor in determining the meaning of hieros, as a
glance at its compounds demonstrates. Even if everything which is called hieros
does not belong directly to the cultus, it nevertheless remains associated with it.
This remains true, when the choruses in the theatre are called hieroi, for they convey
a divine message (Aristoph., Ranae 674, 686), when non-cultic songs consecrated
to the gods are hieroi, and the circle in which justice is administered is called hieros
(Homer, //. 18, 504). Again, hieros can similarly be used of people, especially of
those who have been initiated into the mysteries (cf. Aristoph., Ranae 652, anthropos
hieros).
(b) ta hiera, lit. the holy things (rarer in the sing.), denotes above all the sacrifice
(e.g. Homer, J/. 1, 147), and occasionally the sacrificial animal (Homer, J/. 2, 420).
In post-Homeric times it frequently denoted the omens which accompanied the
sacrifice. ta hiera was more commonly used for cultic objects (images, vestments,
sacred utensils etc.), cultic actions, and for the cultus in general (e.g. Hdt., 1, 172;
cf. 3 Macc. 3:21).
(c) to hieron has predominantly the meaning of sanctuary, cultic centre. In
contrast to naos, temple building, and to temenos, sacred area (—> Temple), it is a
more general term which can denote the temple building, the sacred area, and also
the sacred grove as the local cultic centre.
(d) hierdsyné is not particularly frequent and means priesthood, in the sense of
office, service and living. In contrast, hierateia means priestly activity, the office,
but this too is not very frequent. The related vb. hierateud, perform the office of a
priest, was not used until a later period. The vb. hierasthai, to be a priest, is more
ancient and both words are derived from it. The related adj. hieratikos occurs
frequently and generally denotes anything priestly. hierateuma is found only in the
LXX (— Priest).
3. hierourgeo, perform sacred rites, hieroprepés, befitting the sacred, hierosyleo,
rob a temple or commit sacrilege, and their derivatives need no further explana-
tion. But further comment is necessary on hierothytos and especially hiereus and
archiereus.
(a) hierothytos means devoted, offered to a god, sacrificed, and is a specifically
cultic term. The plur. ta hierothyta means the sacrifice or sacrificial flesh. In a
233
HOLY
metaphorical sense it occurs in Pindar, Frag. 78, of human sacrificial death as an
offering to the gods.
(b) hiereus means priest, sacrificer, diviner. In Homer it occurs in par. to mantis
U1. 1, 62; 62, 221). In so far as the priest is skilled in dealing with the sacred he is
also a soothsayer who can give information on things to do with the gods.
A — sacrifice did not necessarily have to be offered by a priest. The head of the
family could carry out the family sacrifice, the chief of the tribe the tribal sacrifice,
and the magistrate the sacrifice for the city. Isoc. laid down the ideal, tén basileian
hosper hierdsynén pantos andros einai nomizousin, ‘‘they believe that kingship, like
priesthood, belongs to every man’’ (2, 6). But the great and important cultic centres
required continuous care and therefore an official priesthood which lived in accord-
ance with temple rather than family tradition. Even if the work of the priests
included dealing with many sacred objects, their most obvious and appropriate
activity was nevertheless the slaughter of the sacrifices. Hence, hiereud, to sacrifice,
has also the meaning of slay and kill U//. 2, 34; Procopius Gazaeus 2, 25).
(c) archiereus as a title occurs first in references to non-Gk. high priests (Hdt.
2, 142, of Egyptian high priests of high rank after the king; cf. the Greek titles
hierapolos, chief priest, hierarchés, president of sacred rites, high priest). Plato
used it in connection with his ideal state (Laws 12, 947a); the archiereus was to
stand annually at the head of all the officiating priests.
In the Hel. period under the Seleucids there were official archiereis for the satrapies
of the day. The chief priests of the great sanctuaries carried the same title. Even
under the Ptolemaic kings archiereis are sometimes mentioned. Under the Romans
the system of the Seleucids was continued. The provincial high priest of the imperial
cult was called archiereus tou Sebastou (ton Sebaston). At the head stood the em-
peror himself as pontifex maximus. From Polyb. (3rd—2nd cents. B.C.) on, archiereus
was translated by the Lat. pontifex. Over and above these, the title archiereus was
also granted to local high priests and to the heads of religious communities, in so
far as these were centred on a sanctuary.
oT In the LXX the following words form a unified group, for they all go back to the
Heb. kohén, in form the participle of kahan, to be a priest, serve as priest (its
etymology is uncertain and does not add anything to our understanding of the word):
hierateia, hierateud, hierateuma, hieratikos (without Heb. equivalent), hiereus,
hierourgeo (without Heb. equivalent), hierourgia (without Heb. equivalent), hieroéma
(without Heb. equivalent), hierdOsyné, archierasthai (without Heb. equivalent),
archierateuo (without Heb. equivalent), archiereus, archierosyné (without Heb.
equivalent). If one ignores completely peripheral words (e.g. hierosyled and its
derivatives in 1 and 2 Macc.; hierodoulos in | Esd.), these form the overwhelming
majority of instances, the only exceptions being hieros (6 times for Heb. equivalents)
and hiereia (2 Ki. 10:20 for Heb. “sarah, a solemn assembly for Baal).
hieros did not fit the Jewish concept of holiness prevailing at the time of the
translation of the LXX, because it meant what is holy in and of itself apart from any
ethical element, whereas since the exile only what conformed to the Torah could
to the Jewish mind be holy. Even the temple in Jerusalem was not generally called to
hieron until the strongly Hel. writings of the LXX (also Philo and Josephus;
exceptions are | Chr. 29:4; cf. 1 Chr. 9:27; 2 Chr. 6:13). The word-group could,
234
HOLY
however, be used for the priest and his activities, for this was essentially a matter
of the cultus for which, according to the law, no one else could be qualified. For
hiereus, hierateia and hierateuma see the discussion under — Priest.
NT |. In the NT most of the words in the group occur only rarely.
(a) hierothyton (only 1 Cor. 10:28) is the meat (— Flesh) which had been slaugh-
tered in the pagan cult. The fact that some Christians continued to eat it, knowing
its origin, caused questions of — conscience at Corinth which Paul sought to
resolve by directing the church to the glory of God and concern for others (1 Cor.
10:31 ff.).
(b) hieroprepés, befitting a holy person or thing, worthy of reverence (only Tit.
2:3) corresponds with the “‘preference for solemn and cultic style’’ in the Pastorals
(TDNT III 254). The context suggests that the nearest parallel usage would be one
like Plut., On the Education of Children 14p. 11c, where it is hieroprepestaton to
accustom boys to the truth. Thus in Tit. 2:3 the older women in the congregation
should be conformed to propriety in their behaviour.
(c) hieros, sacred, holy, occurs in 2 Tim. 3:15 in a similarly solemn context of the
“sacred writings.’ Similar formulae are frequent in Philo and Josephus (cf. TDNT
III 227). Although the word was otherwise not popular, it could perhaps be used
more easily of the Scriptures because they possessed a sacred quality all their own.
In a comparison (1 Cor. 9:13) Paul uses fa hiera in its usual sense of sacred actions.
(d) hierosylos, temple robber, one who commits sacrilege. In Acts 19:37 Paul
and his companions were defended by the town clerk of Ephesus against the charge
of being sacrilegious and blasphemers against pagan temples. Paul was accused
of teaching that “gods made with hands are not gods” and thus of undermining
both trade and the temple of Artemis (Acts 19:26 f.). The related vb., hierosyled,
rob temples (Rom. 2:22), apparently alludes to a problem frequently aired in
Rab. discussion. To what extent was it permissible to do business in pagan-temple
utensils and property, although they were ritually unclean? Under certain circum-
stances such dealings were allowed, if they contributed to the damaging of the
pagan cult. Paul seems to be rejecting such devious practices (cf. O. Michel, Der
Brief an die Romer, 1955'° ad loc.). ({Ed.] The verse may also allude to the practice
of some Jews of removing gold and silver idols from shrines for private profit (cf.
Josephus, Ant. 4, 8, 10.)
(e) hierourged, perform holy service, act as a priest with regard to something. In
Rom. 15:16 Paul makes metaphorical use of the language of the cultus; the Gentiles
must now offer sacrifice to the true God. A sacrifice can only be acceptable, if it
fulfils all the conditions for acceptance. The only true offering is the gospel. Paul
has been ordained, therefore, not as priest but as hierourgon of the gospel, in order
to give correct instruction in offering sacrifice.
2. to hieron and hiereus/archiereus occur more frequently. to hieron is, almost
without exception, a technical term for Herod’s temple (exceptions: any sanctuary,
1 Cor. 9:13; the temple of Artemis, Acts 19:27). The most important difference
between it and naos (— Temple) is that to hieron is never spiritualized. It always
means the structure with its walls, gates, porticos, courts and buildings. The
pinnacle (Matt. 4:5; Lk. 4:9) of the hieron, which never denoted the temple itself,
was perhaps the South-East corner of the outer wall, below which the ground fell
235
HOLY
away steeply into the Kidron valley. Lk. 3:37 and Mk. 12:4 ff. refer to the court of
the women; Acts 3:8 to the court of the men; Mk. 11:15 perhaps to the outermost
court, that of the Gentiles. Jn. 10:23 mentions Solomon’s portico, one of the great
colonnades which surrounded the court of the Gentiles and in which teaching took
place (Mk. 11:27-13:1; Matt. 21:23-24:1; Lk. 20:1-21:38; Jn. 5:14; 7:14, 29;
8:20; Acts 3:11; 5:12, 21, 25, 42), and also prayer (Acts 2:46; Lk. 18:10). Three
points are of theological importance.
(a) The Gospels make it clear that Jesus was frequently in the temple and that he
did not condemn the form of piety which made use of it. According to Mk. 13:1 ff.
and par. Matt. 24:1, Lk. 21:5, he announced the destruction of the temple with
sorrow. When he drove the money-changers and dealers in animals out of the the
court of the Gentiles and forbade anyone to carry merchandise through it (Matt.
22:12 ff.; Mk. 11:15 ff.; Lk. 19:45 ff.), he justified his action by saying that the
temple was God’s house set apart for prayer but men have made it a den of robbers
(cf. Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11). It has become a house of trade (Jn. 2:16). Jesus did not
seek to free himself from the obligations of the religion of his fathers which was
held together by the temple. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to purify it with the
authority of the one who, when the material temple was destroyed, would in three
days build the true naos (Jn. 2:19; cf. Mk. 14:58; Acts 6:14). The idea of a special
holy place is now superfluous.
(b) The earliest Jewish Christians followed Jesus by using the temple for their
prayers (Lk. 24:53; Acts 2:46).
(c) The evangelist Luke shows a particular interest in Jesus’ devotion to the
temple (2:46), and in that of the early Christians and even in that of Paul, the
apostle of the Gentiles (Acts 21:26 ff.; 22:17; 24:12, 18, 25:8). He does this to
prove that the Christians are the true people of God and have been unjustly accused
by the Jews.
3. For hiereus and archiereus which belong to the same group — Priest.
H. Seebass
[Saws datos (hosios), holy, devout, pious; da10tYH¢ (hosiotés),
| S holiness, devoutness, piety; avdaloc (anosios), unholy.
cL In Gk. literature the earliest form of word of this group is hosié. It stood for
what was in accordance with divine direction and providence. “It is not in
accord with divine appointment to contrive evil one against another” (Homer,
Od. 16, 423). hosiés pleon eipein (Emp. 4, 7) means to say more than is required of
one. More particularly hosios can mean the obligations laid on men in ritual and
ceremonies, e.g. burial rites. The adj. hosios (found, like hosiotés, from Plato on)
therefore has the general sense of sanctioned or allowed by divine or natural law.
hosios is seen in perspective when it is compared, on the one hand, with dikaios
(— Righteousness). Thus ta hosia kai dikaia (Plato, Politics 301d) means what is
established by human agreement and divine ordinance. On the other hand, it may
be compared with — hieros which, as a cultic ritual taboo or as what has been
sanctified through the sanctuary, stands in contrast with the profane even when
it has been consecrated to a god. Thus kosmein tén polin kai tois hierois kai tois
hosiois (Isoc., 153b) means to adorn the city with sacred and profane buildings.
236
HOLY
Used of people, hosios means pious, religious; of actions, pure, clean (Emp., 4, 2,
the mouth; Aesch., Cho. 378, the hands; cf. 1 Tim. 2:8). To describe the gods, it is
used late and very rarely along with dikaios (CIG 3830).
OT hosios is used predominantly to translate Heb. hasid (a poetical word, occuring
chiefly in the Pss.). hasid denotes the man who readily accepts the obligations
which arise from the people’s relationship to God, “‘the loyal, the pious one”
(Koehler-Baumgartner, 319). It is related to hesed which denotes the loyal, loving-
kindness of Yahweh for Israel within his — covenant (cf. W. Eichrodt, Theology of
the Old Testament, I, 1961, 232-9). The earliest occurrence (Deut. 33:8) in the bless-
ing of Levi describes the fellowship of the Levites as “thy hdsid’’, because Levi
has proved loyal when tested by God. But hasid occurs most frequently in the plur.
and means the congregation gathered for worship (e.g. Ps. 85:8[9]) serving God
(Ps. 79:2). “Gather to me my faithful ones [h*siday], who made a covenant with
me by sacrifice!” (Ps. 50:5). The gentile nations are not hasid, and within the
people of God the h‘sidim are contrasted in the liturgical Ps. 15 with those declared
guilty. Even in the context of strict observance of the — law, hdsid can have the
sense of trusting. Because Yahweh forgives sins, everyone who is hdsid towards
him prays to him (Ps. 32:6; cf. 52:9 f.[10]). It can also mean that whoever trusts in
his integrity (LXX hosiotés) is righteous (Prov. 14:32).
h*sidim as the name of a particular group within Jud. does not occur until the
time of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 2:42; 7:13; 2 Macc. 14:6). This group seems to
have lived in accordance with apocalyptic tradition and therefore to have observed
the law particularly strictly. The absence of the word in the Qumran documents is,
however, striking. Clearly it was not a self-designation of the community but a
name attached to it by those outside. ([Tr.] There are grounds for thinking that the
term dropped out of use, when this group split into two or more parties.)
God is twice described as hosios. In Deut. 32:4 it translates yasar, upright; God
observes the decrees which he himself has made. In Ps. 145:17 it stands for hasid.
God supports the fallen, satisfies the hungry and is near to those who pray to him
(cf. also Wis. 5:19). God takes hosiotés as an invincible shield (see below on Rev.
15:4). ta hosia (Deut. 29:19[18], sal6m), are correspondingly, the kindnesses which
one expects from God, and in Isa. 55:3 (plur. of hesed) the successes which David
could expect from God (David as a witness to the power of God among the
nations).
NT 1. In the NT Aosios is a rare word (8 occurrences, of which 5 are in quotations;
hosiotés twice; anosios twice). The most important OT use (hosioi, the congrega-
tion) does not appear. The members of the Christian community are not h’sidim,
but chosen ones (eklektoi; —> Election, art. eklegomai) and saints (— hagios). Only
in the more strongly Hel. writings is there occasional use of hosios (e.g. Lk. 1:75,
of Jewish piety) and the negative anosios (1 Tim. 1:9, where the law is said to have
been laid down for the unholy; cf. 2 Tim. 3:2). Eph. 4:24 mentions hosiotés as one
of the qualities of the new man.
2. God is twice called hosios in quotations. The hymn of Rev. 15:3, 4 goes back
to Ps. 145:17 and its context (God alone is hosios). Rev. 16:5 recalls Deut. 32:4;
God is equally dikaios (just in judgment) and hosios (holy in judgment), when he
condemns evildoers.
237
Hoty/HOPE
3. The use of hosios in Heb. 7:26 is unique. Here the word is used absolutely
in the way in which elsewhere it can be used only of God. As high priest (archiereus),
Christ is completely hosios, utterly without sin and utterly pure, so that his offering
is sufficient once for all. Acts 2:27 and 13:35 (quoting Ps. 16:10) make a different
point. God’s promise, not to let his Holy One (hosios; cf. Heb. hdasid) see destruc-
tion, was not fulfilled in David. It has only now been fulfilled in Christ. By virtue
of the — resurrection Jesus is the true hdsid, although he was condemned by the
religious authorities as a religious criminal. Hence, he is also heir to the kindnesses
which David was to expect from God (Acts 13:34, quoting Isa. 55:3), and has
been given authority to judge all nations (Acts 17:31). H. Seebass
—> Lord, — Priest, — Sacrifice, — Serve, Deacon, Worship, — Temple
(a). E. H. Askwith, The Christian Conception of Holiness, 1900; J. G. Davies, ‘“The Concept of
Holiness’’, London Quarterly Review 185, 1960, 36-44; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament,
I, 1961; II, 1967 (see index); J. H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy, Supplements to NovT 12, 1966;
G. Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 1973; F. Hauck, hosios, TDNT V 489-93; O. R. Jones,
The Concept of Holiness, 1961; L. E. Keck, ‘““‘The Poor and the Saints in Jewish Christianity and
Qumran’, ZNW 57, 1966, 54 ff.; J. Muilenburg, “Holiness”, 7DB II 616-25; S. Neill, Christian
Holiness, 1960; M. Noth, ‘““The Holy Ones of the Most High’, The Laws in the Pentateuch and
Other Studies, 1966, 215-28; R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 1923; E. Pax, ““Holy”, EBT I 372-75;
O. Procksch and K. G. Kuhn, hagios etc., TDNT I 88-115; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology,
I, 1962, 203—7 and 271-79; H. Ringgren, The Prophetical Conception of Holiness, 1948; and Israelite
Religion, 1966; J. C. Ryle, Holiness, (1879) 1952; D. S. Shapiro, ‘““The Meaning of Holiness in
Judaism’’, Tradition 7, 1, 1965, 46-80; G. Schrenk, hieros etc., TDNT III 221-32; N. H. Snaith,
The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944, 21-50; N. Walker, ‘““‘The Origin of the “Thrice-
Holy’ ”, NTS 5, 1958-59, 132 f.; A. S. Wood, “Holiness”, ZPEB UTI 173-83.
(b). R. Asting, Die Heiligkeit im Urchristentum, 1930; W. W. von Baudissin, Studien zur semi-
tischen Religionsgeschichte, II, 1878; H. Bardtke, ““Heilig und Profan”, EKL II 52 ff.; J. Dillers-
berger, Das Heilige im Neuen Testament, 1926; J. Hanel, Die Religion der Heiligkeit, 1931; B.
Haring, Das Heilige und das Gute, 1950; E. Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament,
1881; K. Koch, ‘“‘Die Eigenart der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigesetzgebung”, ZT-K 55, 1958, 36 ff.;
G. Lanczkowski et al., “‘Heilig’’, RGG* III 146 ff.; F. J. Leenhardt, La Notion de Sainteté dans
l’ Ancien Testament, 1929; O. Schilling, Das Heilige und das Gute im Alten Testament, 1956.
Hope, Expectation
Of the various terms which express hope or expectancy, the most frequently used
and the richest in meaning in NT Gk. are the noun e/pis, the vb. elpizo and their
derivatives. Both words denote, on the one hand, the act of hoping, but both in-
clude also the idea of the object hoped for. Thus ta e/pizomena means the good
things hoped for, and e/pis the object of good hope as well as the act of hope. The
other words, which are dealt with in a second article, form a group because of their
common derivation from the stem dok- or dek-, to receive, accept, and have an
essentially narrower range of meaning. The noun apokaradokia denotes a longing,
almost impatient expectancy. prosdokaé and prosdokia imply fearful anticipation
of something (catastrophe, war). prosdechomai, beside its frequent meaning, to
take up, accept, can also mean wait for, expect, and is therefore also treated here.
nl éAnic (elpis), expectation, hope; éAzi€q@ (elpizo), expect,
| ee | hope; anmeAniCw (apelpizo), expect back; npoedAnila@
(proelpizo), hope in advance.
238
HOPE
CL elp-, the stem of elpis, elpizd, was formed from the root *vel (cf. Lat. velle, to
wish) by extension with p (also retained in Lat. voluptas, desire). In secular Gk.
elpis does not correspond with our word hope, since it is a general word for the
anticipation of future events of all kinds, of good (hope) or evil (fear). A synonym
of prosdokia, expectation, it can be used to denote hope by the addition of adjs.
like agathé, glykeia, hilara (good, bright, joyful). The vb. e/piz6 means not only
hope, but also expect, suppose, think.
Living hope as a fundamental religious attitude was unknown in Gk. culture.
Admittedly Theognis said, “‘As long as you live by honouring the gods, hold on to
hope!”’ and Horace called fides (faith, loyalty) the companion of spes (hope). But
in the final analysis men had to stand without hope before the hostile forces of guilt
and death. Sophocles’ chorus lamented, ““The highest remains, never to be brought
to life.’’ Seneca called hope the definition of “‘an uncertain good”’. But deification
and immortality promised by the mystery religions were human pipe dreams. (For
further examples see R. Bultmann, el/pis, TDNT II 518 ff.)
OT 1. Hope in the Heb. OT. (a) Heb. has four main vbs. meaning to hope: (1) qawah
(connected with qaw, stretched out, plumbline), to be stretched out towards, to
long after, wait for (with God as obj. 26 times); (ii) yahal, to wait, long (for God, 27
times); (iil) hakdh, to wait (for God, 7 times); (iv) sabar, to wait, hope (for God, 4
times). The four corresponding nouns are not much in evidence (they are used in 9
passages of hope in God). The most common is tigwah (17 times). Various forms
of betah which has more the meaning of trust and security are also translated by
elpis in the LXX (see 2 below). Hoping as an act stands in the foreground and occurs
in promises and exhortations, but most of all as a confession of assurance, especially
in the Pss. The Heb. vbs. of hoping are closely connected with those of trust (—
Faith, art. pistis).
(b) Of 146 passages in which vbs. or nouns describe hoping, half do so in a
secular sense. In these it is an expectation combined with certainty and tension,
directed towards some definite desired object or event still lying in the future.
Whether the certainty supporting such an expectation is valid and has an objective
basis, or whether it is grounded in a subjective and erroneous assessment
is an open question. What characterizes the judgment of this secular hope is the
fact that in many passages, despite its personal intensity, it is described as futile.
Prov. in particular emphasizes that the fool’s hope (i.e. that of the godless) will
come to nothing (11:7).
(c) The testimony of the OT to hope in God. This hope is often the subject of the
OT even where the terms do not occur. In formal structure it resembles secular
hope (see above), but is essentially different in content, basis and effects. In the 73
passages in which the hope of the faithful of Israel is expressed through the vb. or
noun Yahweh is named as the object of hope. ““To hope in Yahweh’’, “‘to wait for
Yahweh” are expressions created by the OT writers. Those Babylonians whose
prayers have come down to us never called their gods their ““Hope’’. But an Israelite
could pray, ““Thou, O Lord, art my hope”’ (Ps. 71:5). Jeremiah spoke of “Thou
hope of Israel’? (14:8; 17:13). Thus Yahweh was the object, embodiment and
guarantor of his people’s hope. People wait for his name (Ps. 52:9 RSV mg.), for
his word of forgiveness (Ps. 130:5), his arm (Isa. 51:5), his salvation (Gen. 49:18).
239
HOPE
In eschatological passages the content of the hope is not expressed in abstract terms
but in the form of a vision. For this reason the words of hope seldom occur there
(but see Isa. 25:9; 42:4; 51:5; Hab. 2:3). The horizon of hope in the OT stretches
far beyond what the majority of witnesses could see in terms of personal hope for
their individual lives. It embraces Yahweh’s coming in glory, his reign over a new
—> earth, the — conversion of Israel and the nations, and the new — covenant,
based on the — forgiveness of sins. An important element in the maintenance of a
pure hope was the struggle of the classical — prophets against false prophets, with
their false hope and dreams of salvation. A glance at the prophetic writings and the
Pss. shows that Israel, throughout a history so frequently marked by judgment in
the shape of different calamities, repeatedly looked to God for the continuation
of his gracious dealings with them (cf. Hos. 12:7; Jer. 31:17; Isa. 40:31; Ps. 40:1).
Such hope, therefore, was a gift of God (Ps. 62:5, “‘my hope is from him’’; Jer.
29:11, “‘to give you a future and a hope’’). Wherever, humanly speaking, the future
seemed a dead end, prophets of judgment like Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel opened
up the divine perspective of a new beginning (cf. Hos. 2; Jer. 29:1 ff.; 31:31-34;
Ezek. 36;37). In the Pss., where in a lament fearful pleading is followed by state-
ments of joyous hope, form critics explain the latter as “priestly oracles of
salvation”, promises of salvation from God mediated to the worshipper by a
priest.
(d) (i) As a subjective attitude, the hope of faith, like secular hope, is a concrete
personal expectation. Despite the “‘not yet” of the realization of salvation, it looks
forward confidently though not without tension. However, Yahweh, for whom it
waits, is not like us men. Since he knows, promises and brings to pass what the
future holds for his people, hope attains unparalleled assurance in the realm of
revelation. Despite everything which at present runs counter to the promise, the
one who hopes trusts God for his faithfulness’ sake not to disappoint the hope he
has awakened through his word (Isa. 8:17; Mic. 7:7; Ps. 42:5).
(ii) Hand in hand with confident anticipation of God’s gracious dealing goes
submission to the sovereign rule of the Almighty. The time and manner of fulfil-
ment are left to him. Therefore hope and the — fear of God are parallel in many
Pss. (e.g. 33:18; 147:11; cf. Prov. 23:17, 18). To the one who fears the Lord a
future and hope are promised.
(iii) Through confidence and humility hope becomes a patient, persevering
waiting which can endure anxiety.
(iv) Waiting for God does indeed make men “‘still’? but not inactive. It demon-
strates the new strength (Isa. 40:31) they have received by the overcoming of temp-
tation and by actions directed towards the hoped for future. During the siege
Jeremiah bought a field to bear witness to the word of the Lord that “‘houses and
fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land” (32:6 ff.).
2. LXX and Rab. Judaism. (a) The LXX uses e/pizo primarily to translate vbs.
of trusting: (a) 46 times for batah, to feel safe, to rely; (b) 20 times for hasdah, to
take refuge, to hide; (c) 16 times for yahal, to wait; (d) only twice for gawah, to
wait anxiously. This last is translated a further 26 times by hypomeno (— Patience),
which means to hold out rather than expect. This marked rapprochement with the
vbs. of trusting distinguishes LXX usage from that of secular Gk. and prepares
the way for the NT understanding of elpizo.
240
HOPE
(b) The whole of post-OT Judaism is characterized by a variety of eschatological
expectations, directed in the first place towards the coming of the messiah and the
restoration of the kingdom of Israel. These hopes were often disappointed. Men
rose with messianic claims and set the enthusiasm of the people ablaze. But sooner
or later all these movements collapsed. This explains the pessimistic streak which
accompanied the eschatological expectations of the Rabbis. God’s kingdom could
only come when Israel was completely obedient to the law. But this gave rise to an
element of uncertainty: who could really say what complete obedience was? This
made the individual’s personal hope uncertain too: who could say that God was
really pleased with him? The Pss. Sol., on the other hand, contain the messianic
hope, and in the books of the Maccabees the resurrection of the body is attested as a
hope. (See further R. Bultmann and K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT II 523-30; S. Mo-
winckel, He That Cometh, 1959, 261-450; —» Jesus Christ.)
(c) In contrast to this pessimistic view the community of Qumran continued to
affirm that there was hope for men and that this hope was founded in God’s saving
actions. Nevertheless, this hope was only valid for the — elect of God.
(d) In Hel. Judaism the messianic hope retreated behind the idea of the immor-
tality of the — soul (see especially Philo who hoped only for the moral consumma-
tion of the individual soul).
NT 1. Occurrence. It is a remarkable fact of NT usage that e/pizé and elpis play
no great role in the Gospels. Only the vb. appears, once each in Matt. (quotation
from the OT, Matt. 12:21 = Isa. 42:4) and Jn. (5:45), and three times in Lk. (6:34;
23:8; 24:21), in the sense of subjective expectation. The main emphasis on hope is
found in the Pauline writings (19 out of 31 occurrences of the vb.; 36 out of 51 of
the noun), and of these particularly in Rom. (4 and 13 occurrences respectively).
Also prominent are the occurrences in the literature indebted to the Pauline tradi-
tion: | Pet. (2 and 3 times) and Heb. (1 and 5 times). In Acts both vb. and noun
(2 and 8 times) are used particularly of the “hope of Israel’? which is interpreted
as hope in the resurrection.
apelpizo: the suffix ap- (apo) negatives the meaning of the simple vb., hence
apelpizo means to cease to hope, to give up hope, to doubt. In the NT it occurs only
in Lk. 6:35. Here, however, we have a departure from the meaning that can be
demonstrated elsewhere, and the word means, to hope in return: lend, expecting
nothing in return (cf. Vulg. nihil inde sperantes).
proelpizo: to hope before, only in Eph. 1:12. The “‘before”’ means either, if “‘we”’
embraces the Jewish Christians: we hoped in Christ before Gentile Christians
received faith and hope; or it denotes the messianic hope which the Jews had
before Christ’s coming.
2. Meaning. In the NT the words never indicate a vague or a fearful anticipation,
but always the expectation of something good (cf. prosdokia agathou). Where the
vb. is followed by a prep. (eis tina, epi and en tini), the latter refers to the object on
which the hope is set. In many passages e/pis denotes not the personal attitude
but the objective benefit of salvation towards which hope is directed (thus Gal. 5:5;
Col. 1:5; Tit. 2:13). Where vb. or noun are used absolutely without further quali-
fication the reference is usually to the eschatological fulfilment (thus Rom. 8:24;
12:12; 15:13; Eph. 2:12 etc.; — Goal, art. eschatos).
241
HOPE
3. The revelation of Christ as a new situation. All the NT witnesses are agreed
that through the coming of the promised Christ the situation described in terms of
hope in the OT has been fundamentally altered. In the Redeemer the world’s day
of salvation has broken in as God’s great “‘today’’. What was previously future
has now in him become present for faith: — justification, personal relationship
to God as his > child, the indwelling of the Holy — Spirit, the new — people of
God comprising believers from — Israel and the nations. The presence of salvation
is most strongly emphasized in the realized eschatology of Jn. Therefore the word
elpis does not occur there. Its absence from Rev. is for a different reason. The
thoroughly visionary picture of the end and of the foreground of the parousia
replaces the abstract. Because of the new situation the hope of the NT is reshaped
as regards both content and basis. However, since the “today” of salvation is only
apparent to faith, it acquires a double aspect: to the “‘now” one has to add “‘not
yet” (1 Jn. 3:2), to the “having’’ (~ Fellowship, art. echd) and “being in Christ”’
one has to add hope in him and looking for him.
4. Hope, faith and love. Hope is such a fundamental part of the Christian position
that this can be described as rebirth to a “living hope”’ (1 Pet. 1:3). In paganism
there were, of course, ideas of a metaphysical future, but no hope providing comfort
and freedom from the fear of death (Eph. 2:12; 1 Thess. 4:13). The significance of
elpis is further clarified by the fact that, along with pistis (— Faith) and agapé
(— Love), it forms part of the primitive Christian triad (the three fundamental
elements of the Christian life, e.g. 1 Thess. 1:3; 1 Cor. 13:13). None of them can
exist without the others. There can be no hope without faith in Christ, for hope is
rooted in him alone. Faith without hope would, by itself, be,empty and futile
(1 Cor. 15:14, 17).
5. The essential features of NT hope are given decisive shape by three factors.
(a) Its content. It is never ego-centric, but always centred on Christ and on God.
Its heart is not the blessing of the individual but the universal kingly rule of God,
in which he will be “all in all’? (1 Cor. 15:28). Resurrection does not mean the
resumption of a life en sarki, in the — flesh, nor even kata sarka, according to the
flesh, but the fulfilment of the life received through the new — birth, en pneumati,
in the — Spirit, kata pneuma, according to the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8). For “‘the last
Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). In the realm of the word elpis,
its content is defined as: — salvation (1 Thess. 5:8), — righteousness (Gal. 5:5), —
resurrection in an incorruptible body (1 Cor. 15:52 ff.; Acts 23:6; 24:15), eternal
— life (Tit. 1:2; 3:7), seeing God and being conformed to his likeness (1 Jn. 3:2 f.;
— Image), the — glory of God (Rom. 5:2) or simply doxa (Col. 1:27; cf. 2 Cor.
3:12, the abiding doxa of NT service).
(b) Its basis. This does not rest on good works (— law) but on the gracious work
of God in Jesus Christ. He is therefore called “‘our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1; Col. 1:27,
‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’’). This Christ is no stranger to the community of
hope but the One whom they recognize in the gospel as the crucified and risen Lord
and whose presence they know through the Spirit. Thus their hope is in the “‘future
of the One who has come” (Kreck). With the gift of his own Son for all God gives
the certainty that he will give us everything with him through our transfer into the
Christian community (Rom. 8:32). Because Christ has risen as the — “‘first fruits’,
we shall also all rise (1 Cor. 15:20 ff.). The Coming One is the Exalted One, whom
242
HOPE
God has already set over all things and given to the church as its head (Eph. 1:22).
(c) Its nature as a gift. As elpis agathé (good hope), hope is a gift of the Father’s
grace (2 Thess. 2:16) like faith, and is therefore aroused through the message of
salvation (Col. 1:23) in which we receive our call. In this k/lésis (— Call, art. kaled)
the goal of hope in all its riches gives enlightenment (Eph. 1:18), and hope unites
those who have been called (Eph. 4:4). Through the power of the Holy Spirit we
receive a superabundance of hope (Rom. 15:13), for he is given us as the — first
fruits (Rom. 8:23). His indwelling in believers is the guarantee of their resurrection
(Rom. 8:11).
6. The characteristics of hope as a subjective attitude. One cannot separate hope
as a personal attitude from the objective content of hope, since hope is not a
theoretical knowledge about a promised future salvation but a function of a living
faith.
(a) It is always a confident, sure expectation of divine saving actions. Without
shutting its eyes to the needs and judgments in the foreground of the parousia,
hope looks at the coming city of God. pistis and elpis are most closely connected
(see NT above, 4). Faith gives “‘substance”’ to our hope (Heb. 11:1 NEB) or is the
‘assurance of things hoped for’’ (on this verse — Form, art. Aypostasis). In Rom.
4:18 — Abraham’s faith is presented as faith par’ elpida ep elpidi, ‘in hope against
hope’’, i.e. against what human judgment of the future declared to be impossible
he set the hope given him through God’s promise. Faith and hope have in common
the fact that their object is still invisible and unprovable (cf. Rom. 8:24 ff. ho ou
blepomen, elpizomen, “‘we hope for what we do not see’’). But, like faith, NT hope
carries unconditional certainty within itself (see 5(a)-(c)). Therefore, confessions of
hope can be introduced by pisteuomen, “‘we believe’’ (Rom. 6:8), pepeismai, “‘I am
sure’ (Rom. 8:38), pepoithds, (I am) “certain” (Phil. 1:6). Certain that God’s
promises of salvation will be realized, the Christian glories in his hope, i.e. he
gratefully praises God’s grace (Rom. 5:2, kauchémetha ep elpidi, ““we rejoice on
the basis of our hope’’; cf. Heb. 3:6, to kauchéma tés elpidos, “‘pride in our
hope’’).
(b) elpis and agapé. Like faith and hope, agapé (—> Love) ‘and hope are also
essentially related in the NT. If 1 Cor. 13:7 states that love “hopes all things’’,
Col. 1:4, 5 speaks of “‘the love which you have for all the saints, because of the
hope. ...” Paul calls the Christians in Thessalonica his “hope and joy” (1 Thess.
2:19), and says in 2 Cor. 1:7, “‘our hope for you is unshaken’”’. NT hope extends
both heart and vision. The church, as it waits for the redemption of the body, even
feels solidarity with the whole ktisis (— Creation) as it lies in travail, and hopes for
it (Rom. 8: 20-23; on this passage see M. Black, Romans, 1973, 121 ff.).
(c) NT hope is a patient, disciplined, confident waiting for and expectation of the
Lord as our Saviour. To hope is to be set in motion by the goal ahead, awaiting
in this movement towards the goal. It demonstrates its living character by the
steadfastness with which it waits, by hypomoné (— Patience, art. hypomend), by the
patient bearing of the tension between the now, as we walk (for the moment) dia
pisteos, by — faith (2 Cor. 5:7), and our future manner of life (cf. Rom. 8:25;
1 Thess. 1:3). This waiting is something active, for it involves overcoming. Although
the waiting may be painful, this too is reckoned positively as “travail” which
243
HOPE
announces “rebirth” (Matt. 24:8). Therefore those who hope are comforted and
confident (2 Cor. 5:8; 2 Thess. 2:16; | Thess. 4:18). Hoping is disciplined waiting.
Therefore, in | Pet. 1:13 the warning, ‘“‘set your hope fully upon the grace ...’’, is
preceded by “gird up your minds’’, i.e. be ready for the onslaught. To this con-
text belongs the fundamental renunciation of all calculations of the future, the
humble recognition of the limits set to our knowledge, the submission of our wishes
to the demands of the battle for life to which we have been appointed. The goal of
our hope calls us to “watch and pray’’. The man who competes for an earthly >
crown makes the necessary sacrifices (1 Cor. 9:25). Hope becomes the motive for
personal purity (1 Jn. 3:3), spurs us on to strive for holiness (Heb. 12:14) without
which no man can see God. Filled with the longing to return home to his Lord,
the apostle seeks his glory in pleasing him (2 Cor. 5:8 f.). Hope requires us to hold
fast our confession of it without wavering (Heb. 10:23) and to be ready to give an
answer to anyone who asks us to give an account of our hope (1 Pet. 3:15). Finally,
however, NT hope is a joyful waiting (Rom. 12:12; — Patience, art. hypomeno).
It gives courage and strength. It protects the inner man as a helmet protects the
head (1 Thess. 5:8). As a ship is safe when at anchor, our life is secured by hope
which binds us to Christ, our great High Priest who has entered the sanctuary
(Heb. 6:18 f.). E. Hoffmann
—.._._. | dnokapadoxia (apokaradokia), eager expectation;
| dnoxapadoxia éxdéyoual (ekdechomai), expect, wait for; ékdoxr
(ekdoché), expectation; anexdéyoual (apekdechomai), wait, wait eagerly;
mpoadéyopual (prosdechomai), receive, welcome; mpoodoKkdw (prosdokao), wait
for, look for, expect; tpoodokia (prosdokia), expectation.
CL & oT While ekdoché (Heb. 10:27 f.) and prosdokia (Lk. 21:26; Acts 12:11 f.)
are only used of fearful anticipation, apokaradokia appears twice in Paul in
confessions of hope. The word does not occur in pre-Christian Gk., but the use of
the simple vb. karadokeo (wait for) is widespread in Hel. Gk. It is formed from the
noun to kara, the head, and dechomai, accept. In apokaradokeo the prefix apo-
(according to Bertram) strengthens a negative element. This would make the
meaning: to anticipate something longingly but anxiously (cf. the negative effect
of apo- in apelpizo, to doubt; apogindsko, to give up; apeipon — aor. of apolego, to
forbid, renounce). The compounds of dechomai formed with ek-, apo- and pros-, and
prosdokao, mostly denote patient waiting for a future goal.
NT |. In the NT apokaradokia only occurs in Rom. 8:19 and Phil. 1:20. Luther
translated Rom. 8:19 as “‘anxious waiting’. The Gk. fathers, however, inter-
preted the noun without any negative tinge as “intense anticipation’’, “strong and
excited expectation’. At all events, the emotional force of eschatological expec-
tancy is strongly emphasized here. NEB therefore translates Phil. 1:20 as “I
passionately hope’’. Rom. 8:19 ascribed to the Ktisis, — creation, a longing for the
revelation of the children of God. It is they alone who know that the creation has
been subjected to decay ep’ elpidi, “‘in hope’’. Hope, — elpis, does not remove the
244
HOPE
tension from apokaradokia, but frees it from fear and uncertainty. So the two words
can stand together (Phil. 1:20) and bear witness to the fact that the power of ex-
pectation does not lie in strength of feeling but in the certainty which God has
given and which is peculiar to hope.
2. ekdechomai, apekdechomai, prosdechomai. The words formed from the stem
men- are rare in the NT, occurring once each (perimend Acts 1:4, object: the
promise of the Father, i.e. the Holy Spirit) and anameno (1 Thess. 1:10, object:
the Son). hypomend means to await only in the LXX, but not in the NT (but cf.
hypomoné in Rev. 3:10, “‘the word of patient endurance’’; — Patience). The words
formed with the roots dek- and dok-, however, occur frequently in this sense.
(a) ekdechomai means await, wait for. In this sense it occurs 6 times, of which
three are in secular contexts (Acts 17:16; | Cor. 11:33; 16:11), one in a comparison
(Jas. 5:7 of the farmer who waits for the fruit of the fields) and two refer to waiting
for the eschata, the last things (Heb. 10:13; 11:10). Christ, seated at the right —
hand of the Father, is waiting for the moment when his enemies will be made his
footstool (cf. Ps. 110:1). And — Abraham was waiting for the city with sure
foundations (a picture of heaven as a world of blessedness and perfect communion
with God).
(b) apekdechomai (8 times, of which 6 are in Paul and | in Heb. and 1 in 1 Pet.).
The word does not occur in the LXX. The prefix ap/apo emphasizes the distance
between the state of waiting and the time of fulfilment of what is hoped for. Through
it the one who is waiting is compelled to persevere. NEB renders the word in Gal.
5:5 “eagerly wait’’. But generally it is only the context which implies the manner of
waiting. In terms of content the expectation is directed towards the returning Lord
(Phil. 3:20), who will prove himself to be our ‘Saviour’ as he transforms our bodies,
towards our entry into the full riches of sonship through the resurrection of the
body (Rom. 8:23), and therefore towards dikaiosyné, — righteousness, in the last
judgment (Gal. 5:5). Since the human and the non-human creation share equally
in the effects of the fall and in salvation, creation’s anticipation of freedom from
the curse of death is directed ultimately towards the entrance into glory of the
children of God (Rom. 8:19). The children of God, aware of the nature of hope
(Rom. 8:24), are waiting di’ hypomonés (v. 25), in patient endurance of the suffering
of the present age.
(c) prosdechomai means I accept, but mostly I wait (14 times, of which 7 are in
secular contexts). Where it is used of the expectations of faith it denotes (i) the
messianic expectation of Israel (Lk. 2:25, 38: Simeon was waiting for the consola-
tion of Israel; Anna spoke to those who were waiting for the salvation of Jerusalem),
and (ii) the eschatological goal of salvation (resurrection, Acts 24:15; mercy in the
judgment, Jude 21; the incomparable glory that will come with the epiphany,
Tit. 2:13).
3. prosdokaoé, I wait, wait for, look for someone or something, expect, occurs 16
times, of which 5 are in sayings, 2 in 2 Pet. In Matt. 11:3 par. Lk. 7:9 f. it appears
in the Baptist’s question about the expected messiah. In Matt. 24:50 it is used of
Jesus’ parousia, which comes unexpectedly. 2 Pet. 3:13 identifies the goal of ex-
pectation as “‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells’, and
v. 12 as the inbreaking of the day of God. Those who wait are at one and the same
time the speudontes, which some interpret as those who strive (thus C. Maurer
245
HOPE
TDNT VI 726) and are zealous (Arndt, 771) some as those who hasten the day
through their holy conduct. E. Hoffmann
—> Fullness, — Present, — Promise
(a). Advisory Commission, World Council of Churches, Christ the Hope of the World, 1954; A.
Barr, “‘ ‘Hope’ (elpis, elpizé) in the New Testament’’, SJT 3, 1950, 68-77; J. B. Bauer, ‘“‘Hope’’,
EBT I 376-79; E. Brunner, Our Eternal Hope, 1954; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament,
I, 1952, 319-23, 344-47; R. Bultmann and K. H. Rengstorf, elpis, TDNT II 517-35; G. B. Caird,
W. Pannenberg, I. T. Ramsey, J. Klugmann, N. Smart, and W. A. Whitehouse, The Christian
Hope, SPCK Theological Collections 13, 1970; H. Conzelmann, Outline Theology of the New
Testament, 1969, 184-91; E. H. Cousins, ed., Hope and the Future of Man, 1973; W. M. Cunning-
ham, “The Theology of Hope: An English Language Bibliography”, Canadian Journal of Theology,
15, 1969, 131-37; W. J. Dalton, ‘“‘ ‘So that Your Faith May Also Be Your Hope in God’ (1 Peter
1:21)”, in R. J. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope (Leon Morris Festschrift), 1974, 262-74; F. J.
Denbeaux, “‘Biblical Hope’’, Interpretation 5, 1951, 285-303; J. E. Fison, Christian Hope, 1954;
T. F. Glasson, His Appearing and his Kingdom: The Christian Hope in the Light of its History, 1953,
K. Hanhart, ‘“‘Paul’s Hope in the Face of Death’’, JBL 88, 1969, 445-57; B. C. Hanson, Hope
and Participation in Christ: A Study in the Theology of Barth and Pannenberg, Dissertation, Prince-
ton Theological Seminary, 1971; F. Kierstiens, ‘““The Theology of Hope in Germany Today”’,
Concilium 6, 9, 1970, 101-11; W. G. Kimmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 1961; and ‘“‘Eschatological
Expectation in the Proclamation of Jesus’’, in J. M. Robinson, ed., The Future of Our Religious
Past: Essays in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann, 1971, 29-48; M. D. Meeks, Origins of the Theology of
Hope, 1974; P. S. Minear, Christian Hope and the Second Coming, 1954; “Time of Hope in the
New Testament’’, SJT 6, 1953, 337-61; and ‘““Hope’”’ /DB II 640-43; C. Maurer, prosdokad, TDNT
VI 725 ff.; J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 1967; Hope and Planning, 1971; Theology and Joy,
1973; and The Experiment Hope, 1975; P. H. Monsma, ““Hope’’, ZPEB III 198 ff.; C. F. D. Moule,
The Meaning of Hope, 1963; G. O’Collins, ‘“‘The Principle and Theology of Hope’’, SJT 21, 1968,
129-44; J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and his Coming, 1957; and In the End, God, 19687; H. Sasse,
‘“‘Some Thoughts on Christian Hope’’, Reformed Theological Review, 26, 1967, 41-54; H. Schlier,
‘““On Hope’’, The Relevance of the New Testament, 1968, 142-55; H. C. Snape, ‘“‘Man’s Future on
Earth and Beyond; The Christian Hope Today”, The Modern Churchman, 7, 1963, 84-92; D.
Stewart, “In Quest of Hope: Paul Ricoeur and J. Moltmann’’, Restoration Quarterly 13, 1970,
31-52; G. Vos, “‘Eschatology in the Psalter”, Princeton Theological Review 18, 1920, 1-43; D. E. H.
Whiteley, The Theology of St Paul, 1964, 233 ff.; D. D. Williams, ““Tragedy and the Christian Escha-
tology”, Encounter 24, 1963, 61-73; W. Zimmerli, Man and His Hope in the Old Testament, 1971.
(b). H. Bardkte, H. Conzelmann, E. Schlink, “Hoffnung’’, RGG? III 415 ff.; G. Bertram, apokara-
dokia, ZNW 49, 1958, 264 ff.; P. A. H. de Boer, “Etudes sur le sens de la racine qgwh’’, Oudtesta-
mentische Studien, 10, 1954, 225-46; J. van der Ploeg, ‘“‘L’espérance dans l’Ancien Testament”’,
RB 61, 1954, 481-507; W. Grossouw, “‘L’espérance dans le Nouveau Testament’, RB 61, 1954,
508-32; W. Grundmann, “Uberlieferung und Eigenaussage im eschatologischen Denken des
Apostels Paulus’, NTS 8, 1961-62, 12-26; C. H. Hunzinger, “Die Hoffnung angesichts des
Todes in Wandel der paulinischen Aussagen’’, in Leben angesichts des Todes. Helmut Thielicke
zum 60. Geburtstag, 1968; W. D. Marsch, ed., Diskussion tiber die ‘‘Theologie der Hoffnung’,
1967; E. Neuhausler and P. Engelhardt, “Hoffnung”, L7K V 416 ff.; J.-H. Nicolas, “Valeur de
l’espérance enseignée par l’Ecriture”, Dictionnaire de la Spiritualité, 1960, 1209-16; P. Otzen,
‘* ‘Gute Hoffnung’ bei Paulus’, ZNW 40, 1958, 283 ff.; A. Pott, Das Hoffen im Neuen Testament,
1915; G. Sauter, Zukunft und Verheissung, 1965, and ““Erwagungen zum Begriff and Verstandnis
der Hoffnung heute’, EvTh 8/9, 1967, 406 ff.; J. Schreiner, ““Die Hoffnung der Zukunftsschau
Israels”, in F. Hoffmann et al., eds., Sapienter Ordinare. Festschrift fiir E. Kleineidam, 1969, 29 ff.;
H. Schwantes, Schépfung der Endzeit, 1963; E. Schweizer, ‘““Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatolo-
gische Hoffnung bei Zarathustra, Spatjiidischen Gruppen und den Zeugen des Neuen Testaments”’,
in W. D. Davies and D. Daube eds., The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology,
In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1956, 482-508 (reprinted) in Neotestamentica, 1964, 153 ff.);
T. C. Vriezen, ‘““Die Hoffnung im Alten Testament’, TLZ 78, 1953, 577 ff.; C. Westermann,
Theologia Viatorum 4, 1952, 19 ff.; and ““Das Hoffen im Alten Testament’’, in Forschung am Alten
Testament, ThB 24, 1964, 219 ff.
246
HOUSE
House, Build, Manage, Steward
Oikos oikoc (oikos), house, dwelling-place; oifkia (oikia),
| dwelling, house; oikém (oiked), dwell, inhabit; katolkéw
(katoikeo), inhabit; Katoixntnpiov (katoikétérion), dwelling place, habitation;
Katolkila (katoikizo), settle; évo1xkéw (enoikeo), live in, dwell in; oikeioc (oikeios),
belonging to the house, member of the household.
CL oikos is attested as early as Mycenaean Gk. and has been handed down from
Homer on. It means both the dwelling place and the structure. oikia, from
Herodotus on, denotes the dwelling, the house. Originally the two words were
differentiated in meaning, in that oikia denoted the dwelling place, and oikos the
whole house, the premises, the family property, and even the inhabitants of the
house. This original distinction was maintained in Attic law, where oikos meant the
inheritance and oikia the house itself. Later, particularly after the LXX, the dis-
tinctions were not maintained and the words were used synonymously.
In popular speech oikos meant any kind of house, but frequently also a particular
house and even a temple. In such cases the divine name attached to oikos indicated
the god to whom the temple was dedicated. But the word was also used in the
metaphorical sense. It denoted the family, the property and other similar concepts
connected with the house itself.
The vb. oiked, which belongs to oikos and oikia, occurs frequently in Gk. from
Homer on, and also in the LXX. Used intrans. it means to have one’s dwelling,
dwell; trans. to inhabit, occupy.
oT 1. oikos and oikia appear very frequently in the LXX chiefly to translate the
Heb. bayit. Both words denote the building (the house, and also palace or
temple). But because Heb., like Gk., has no word for the small social unit which
we call the family, bayit (and hence LXX oikos) acquired, in addition to its original
meaning of dwelling place, that of household (those bound together by sharing the
same dwelling place), in a broader sense that of family and clan, and even that of
the still bigger tribal unit (e.g. the house of Judah). When Ps. 127:1 says that God
must build the house if it is to endure, it refers both to the communal lot of those
who dwell under one roof, and also to their heirs and descendants (2 Sam. 7:11 f.,
16,18 f., 25-29) who are obliged to give one another unconditional protection (the
father’s house).
2. Used with God’s name, oikos, as in secular Gk., means the temple, the sanc-
tuary: oikos theou (house of God) or oikos kyriou (house of the Lord). Both ex-
pressions are common. Beside criticism of the idea that anyone could build God a
house (2 Sam. 7:5 f.; 1 Ki. 8:27; Isa. 66:1) we find sincere expressions of joy at the
privilege of being able to’ be in the house of the Lord, especially in the Pss. (e.g. 23:6;
26:8; 27:4; 52:8[10]); 84:4, 10[5, 11]; 92:13[14]; 122:1). To this feeling corresponds
the longing for God’s house on the part of those who are prevented from being
there (cf. Ps. 42:4[5]).
3. It is questionable whether, in the OT, the idea of the “house of God”’ is trans-
ferred from the — temple to the congregation worshipping there, in the same way
that a transference of meaning has taken place from “‘house”’ (dwelling place) to
“family”? (community). All the statements about the house of God remain firmly
247
HOUSE
attached to the earthly sanctuary. The only verse which expressly lies behind the
NT understanding of the congregation as the “house of God”’ (Num. 12:7 = Heb.
3:2, 5) does not refer directly to the temple but to the land in which Yahweh
(through his people) has settled and therefore reigns. It is more conceivable that
an extended use of “house of David’’ for the people of God prepared the way for
the idea that the community was ‘“‘God’s house”’ and ‘‘God’s building”’ (cf. the
promise to rebuild ‘“‘the booth of David that is fallen’? [Amos 9:11; Acts 15:16)]).
4. Going beyond the OT we find that in various phrases in the Qumran documents
‘“‘house”’ denotes the Qumran community which understood itself as a temple or
sanctuary (1QS 5:6; 8:5, 9; 9:6; CD 3:19). On the whole subject — Temple;
— Holy; cf. B. Gartner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New
Testament, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 1, 1965.
NT In the NT, oikos and oikia, which are virtually used as synonyms, have the same
range of meaning as in secular Gk. and in the LXX. Nevertheless, they occur ina
number of characteristic phrases peculiar to the NT (see below 4 (b)-(f) and 5). In
these oikos appears far more frequently.
1. The most frequent use of both oikos and oikia is in the lit. sense of house (e.g.
Matt. 2:11; 7:27-7; 9:7; Mk. 7:30) and in the simple metaphorical sense of
family, household (e.g. Matt. 13:57; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 4:53; 1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15;
2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19) (cf. Arndt, 559 f., 562 f.).
2. Passages which use oikos theou for the -»temple are self-explanatory
(Mk. 2:26 par. Matt. 12:4, Lk.6:4; Matt. 21:13 par. Mk. 11:17, Lk. 19:46 =
Isa. 56:7; Jn. 2:16 f.; Lk. 11:51). The only question which one has to ask about
Acts 7:46—-S0 is whether there is here a criticism of Solomon’s building of a house
(v. 47) in its contrast with David’s request to be allowed to make God a tent dwelling
(skénoma v. 46; — Tent). The statement, illustrated by the quotation from Isa.
66:1, that “the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands” (v. 48) has
been thought to support such an interpretation, according to which Solomon’s
building of the temple was a deviation from the true worship of God. (Cf. E.
Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 285 ff. who points out that Judaism did
not represent Yahweh as dwelling in the temple but only his name. Nevertheless,
Stephen’s words would have had a blasphemous ring for Jews.)
3. The passages which speak of “the house of Israel,” “‘the house of Jacob,” or
“the house of Judah’ (Matt. 10:6; 15:24; Acts 2:36; Heb. 8:8, 10 citing Jer.
31:31 ff.; Lk. 1:33; Acts 7:42-43 citing Amos 5: 25-27) are linked with the meta-
phorical sense of house, family, race (cf. also “house of David” Lk. 1:27, 69; 2:4)
which they extend in the direction of the people of God. In this they are following
the example of the OT, as the frequent references to the OT in these illustrations
show.
4. (a) The NT designation of the Christian community as the house of God which
is ‘‘an integral part of the primitive Christian kérygma’”’ (O. Michel, TDNT V 126),
goes beyond the OT model. This meaning of house may have had several roots.
There are the OT concepts of God’s proprietary rights over his people (expressed
there, admittedly, more through the images of the vine, the vineyard and the planta-
tion, Hos. 10:1; Isa. 5:7; Jer. 2:21; Ps. 80:8 ff.[9 ff.]; cf. 1 Cor. 3:6 ff.), but
which apply equally in the case of the house (—> People; —> Generation). Gnostic
248
HOUSE
ideas of a ‘‘heavenly building’’, identical with the heavenly body of the primal man
and redeemer may also have exercised an influence if they were earlier than the NT
(— Body; — Head; cf. also O. Michel, TDNT V 122 f.). Further, one must take
into consideration the fact that the Qumran documents also see the community as
a holy house, built on the foundation of truth (1QH 7:8 f.).
(b) In its exposition of Num. 12:7, Heb. 3:1-6 is linked to the OT in its termi-
nology. But it extends the thought. Moses and Christ are contrasted: Moses as
‘‘faithful in all God’s house as a servant’’, Christ as the ‘“‘son’”’ and the “‘builder’”’
of the house and, as such, superior. Whatever sense “house’’ may have had in
Num. 12:7 (all Israel as God’s people or God’s “royal household”’; so T. J., cf. O.
Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrder, KEK 13, 19661", 96), for the writer of Heb. it
meant that the Christian community (— Church) is “God’s house,” as 3:6b
demonstrates. ““We are his house, if we hold our confidence and pride in our hope
firm to the end”’ (RSV mg.).
(c) What is important in this connection is not only that God or Christ is regarded
as the builder of the house. In contrast to Philo, it is not the individual, the “‘pure
soul’’ that is seen as God’s house, but the Christian community as a whole which
is designated as such (cf. O. Michel, TDNT V 123-30). Moreover, the passages in
which Paul speaks of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19)
and which are undoubtedly connected with the idea of the house of God, are not
to be understood purely individualistically. They deal objectively with the Christian
community and the problems which arise from the fellowship.
(d) Eph. 2:19-22 shows that the ideas contained in the terms ‘“‘house of God”’
and “temple of God” naturally run into one another. Here, no less than six
different derivatives of oikos (nevertheless, not oikos itself) are used to describe the
spiritual reality of the community under the metaphor of the temple and of the
building. They are paroikos (v. 19, stranger, — Foreign), oikeios (v. 19, members
of the household; cf. Gal. 6:10), epoikodomeo (v. 20, build on; cf. 1 Cor. 3:10, 12,
14; 1 Pet. 2:5 v.13; Acts 20:32 t.r.; Col. 2:7; Jude 20), oikodomé (v. 21, building,
structure; cf. 4:12, 16, 29; -+oikodomed below), synoikodomeo (v. 22, build
together), and katoikétérion (v. 22, dwelling-place; cf. Jer. 9:10; Rev. 18:2). In
1 Pet. 2:4f. the images again overlap. Christians are exhorted to allow themselves
to be built up as spiritual stones into a spiritual house (— oikodome6), in order to
present spiritual sacrifices to God as (and here the picture changes) a spiritual
priesthood. When 1 Pet. 4:17 reckons that the judgment will begin with the house
of God, the natural assumption is that the Christian community is the house of
God. Similarly, 1 Tim. 3:15 expressly identifies ‘the house of God” with ‘“‘the
church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth’.
(e) Given the figurative use of the terms, it was inevitable that many related
concepts and images would be introduced to elucidate the truth concerning the
Christian community which is expressed in the phrase “‘the house of God’’. There is
the idea of the foundation (1 Cor. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 2:19; — Firm, art.
themelios), of Christ as the corner stone (Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4) and
Christians as living stones (1 Pet. 2:5; — Rock), of the pillars (1 Tim. 3:15) and
above all of the temple (1 Cor. 3:16 f.; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; — Temple),
All these passages and concepts, as well as all the derivatives of oikos, must be
taken into account in one’s interpretation.
249
HOUSE
(f) It is strange, however, that the concept of the house of God remains confined
to the idea of a spiritual building and is not extended in the sense of the family, the
other metaphorical meaning of oikos, which could have been used in the sense of
the family of God. Probably the phrase “‘the house of God’ was, through OT
thought, too closely linked to the sanctuary for such an extension to be possible.
5. (a) What could be conveyed by the idea of the family of God had, in fact,
already come into being in the primitive Christian community through the house
churches. The household as a community (the family included the slaves, according
to the ancient concept of it) formed the smallest unit and basis of the congregation.
The house churches mentioned in the NT (Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31, 34; 18:8; 1 Cor.
1:16; Phlm. 2; 2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19) no doubt came into being through the use of the
homes as meeting places. The gospel was preached in them (Acts 5:42; 20:20),
and the Lord’s supper was celebrated in them (Acts 2:46). The conversion of the
head of the house brought the whole family into the congregation and — however
it is to be understood — into the faith (Acts 16:31, 34; 18:8; cf. Jn. 4:53 where, as
an exception to the rule in this connection, we find oikia and not oikos).
The NT also speaks of the — baptism of whole households in the same way
(1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:15; cf. Acts 16:33; perhaps also Acts 18:8). The question
whether one may conclude from these indications that the primitive church prac-
tised infant baptism is discussed in the articles on Baptism.
(b) The formation of the house churches, which can be explained on the basis
of the missionary situation, was of the greatest significance for the spreading of the
gospel. With them the early church took over the natural order of life, without
falling into idealization of the house churches. The way in which the Gospels take
up Micah’s prophecy of the end-time (Mic. 7:6 = Matt. 10:35 f. par. Lk. 12:53)
indicates that the primitive community had to reckon with the disruption of the
family for the sake of the gospel. Those who take this upon themselves are
promised “‘now in this time’’ new “‘houses and brothers and sisters and mothers
and children” (Mk. 10:29 f. par. Matt. 19:29, Lk. 18:29 f.). The place of the
disrupted family is taken by the family of God, the Christian community.
6. In Jesus’ word of revelation in Jn. 14:2 the disciples are promised that many
dwelling places are ready in the Father’s house, into which the disciples will be
received when the Lord returns. Rab. and gnostic parallels (cf. also Eth.Enoch
45:3), which suggest the idea of the right to a heavenly dwelling, help to explain
the expression oikia tou patros mou, ‘“‘my Father’s house’’. Two factors ought,
however, to warn us against an over-hasty mythological localization of the concept:
(a) the linking of the promise of a dwelling to the return, and thereby to the fulfil-
ment of the kingdom of God, and (b) the similarity of the expression to the idea
of the house of God (oikos theou and naos theou) and the related thought of the
right of sanctuary (cf. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes, 1930, 292).
7. (a) The vb. oiked occurs in the NT both in the lit. and in the metaphorical
sense. 1 Cor. 7:12 f., which deals with the living together of the Christian and
non-Christian partners in mixed marriages, belongs to the former category. 1 Tim.
6:16 stands on the borderline between lit. and metaphorical meanings: God “‘dwells
in unapproachable light’. Jewish and Hel. ideas (see the whole verse) are combined
in this statement of the unutterable beauty of God. In the metaphorical sense
oiked is used in describing the inner processes in man (5 passages out of 8): the
250
HOUSE
phrase “‘sin.. . dwells in me’’ (Rom. 7:20; cf. 7:18) depicts the old man, while the
truth about the new man is testified to in the sentence, repeated like a confession of
faith, “the Spirit of God dwells in you”? (Rom. 8:9, 11; 1 Cor. 3:16). katoikizo
occurs in the same sense in Jas. 4:5.
(b) The compound katoiked occurs more frequently in the NT than oikeo.
Intrans. it means dwell; trans. inhabit. Beside the widespread use of the word in
its lit. meaning, it also is used for the possession of a man by God, by Christ or
by ungodly powers. Demons “‘dwell’’ in a man (Matt. 12:45 par. Lk. 11:26); but
to believers God’s purpose is “‘that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith”
(Eph. 3:17). Col. 2:9 can say of Christ that “‘in him the whole fullness of deity
dwells bodily’’ (cf. Col. 1:19) and thus express in language which has affinities with
gnosticism the complete union between Christ and God (but — Fullness, art. p/éroo,
NT 5 (b)).
The noun katoikétérion, dwelling place, home, which has its origins in the LXX,
occurs in connection with the great picture of the Christian community as the
spiritual building and temple (Eph. 2:19-22).
(c) A further compound, enoiked, dwell in, indwell, is only used in the meta-
phorical sense in the NT, in fact similarly to katoiked. God himself will dwell
among men (2 Cor. 6:16 citing Lev. 26:11 f.), and the Holy Spirit dwells in believers
(Rom. 8:11; 2 Tim. 1:14). But the word of Christ (Col. 3:16) and faith (2 Tim. 1:5)
may also be said to dwell in men. On the other hand, the same may be said of sin
(Rom. 7:17).
(d) The adj. oikeios occurs from Hesiod on and means “belonging to the house”’.
In the NT it is only used as a noun meaning member of the household. The lit.
meaning appears in | Tim. 5:8. In the other two passages it is determined by the
understanding of the congregation as the house of God (see above 4). Eph. 2:19
assures the Gentiles that they are no longer strangers (paroikoi; — Foreign) but
members of the household (oikeioi — note the play on words!), accepted into the
full fellowship of the house of God, i.e. the Christian community. Gal. 6:10
reminds the Christian of his duty to do good to all, but has him begin specifically
with “‘those who are of the household of faith,’ the members of the family of God.
J. Goetzmann
pana oikodopé@ (oikodomed), build, build up; oikodopy
| a | (oikodomé), the process of building, a _ building;
émoikodopéw@ (epoikodomed), build on something, build further; cvvoixodopéw
(synoikodome6), build together with.
CL The vb. oikodomed, attested from Hdt. on, means to build, build up, and is used
in many ways in the lit. sense, but also in the fig. The noun oikodomé, building
up, building, occurs frequently in Koine Gk.; it meant originally the process of
building.
OT In the LXX oikodomeé stands for Heb. bandh and occurs frequently (almost 350
times). It is used in most cases in the lit. sense for the erection of a building.
oikodomé, on the other hand, occurs very rarely and almost entirely in later writings
(17 passages; for Heb. words only 4 times in Chr. and Ezr.).
251
HOUSE
The metaphorical use of oikodomed, which occurs particularly in Jer., is inter-
esting. To “plant’’ and to “‘build’’ go together; they are God’s work and have their
opposites in God’s — judgment to “break down” and “pluck up” (Jer. 1:10;
24:6). It is God himself who will rebuild Israel (Jer. 31:4; 33:7). He does his work
by putting his words in the mouths of the prophets (Jer. 1:9 f.). He leads the peoples
into the fellowship of the people of Israel and thus “‘builds them up” (Jer. 12:14 ff.).
This OT use of the concept particularly influenced Paul’s usage. A further element
in the OT, which became effective in the NT, is the recognition that men cannot
build a house for God (Isa. 66:1; — oikos).
NT 1. The apocalyptic-messianic use of oikodome6 in the gospels (only one passage
in Jn.) is linked to this recognition. At the same time it also takes over from the
OT the traditional opposition of build and — destroy (katalyein). Such usage
occurs in Mk. 14:58, and par. Matt. 26:61; Jn. 2:19 ff.; and also Matt. 16:18.
Jesus’ enigmatic saying, which was used to prove the accusation against him at his
trial, speaks of destroying the temple that is made with hands and in three days
building another, not made with hands (Mk. 14:58). Jn. 2:19 ff. interprets this in
terms of the — resurrection and even alters oikodoméso (“I will build’’), which
was probably the original word, to the ambiguous egero (“I will raise’’, v. 19).
Since that time Mk. 14:58 has stood in the shadow of this interpretation, although
this passage — independent of Jn. 2:19 ff. can be understood perfectly well as a
prophecy of the erection of the new temple, the eschatological community. Moreover
the promise to Peter in Matt. 16:18 agrees with such an understanding. Even if the
question has to remain open, whether the fut. oikodoméso refers in both passages
to the parousia of the Son of Man (cf. Mk. 13:26 f.; + Present) or to the power of
Christ’s resurrection and of Pentecost to build up the community, there is an
ultimate reference to the community (— Church) as the eschatological “building of
God’.
2. The usage of Acts is also to be seen against its OT background. Acts 15:16
refers to Amos 9:11 and perhaps to Jer. 12:15 ff. and promises the eschatological
restoration of the people of Israel. Acts 9:31 and 20:32 have “a typically ecclesi-
astical ring’? (O. Michel, TDNT V 139) without any reference to the action of the
messiah.
3. The most important passages for the understanding of the concept occur in
Paul’s letters, where, moreover, almost all the occurrences of the noun are to be
found. However, the verbal use is more important. oikodomé has the meaning of a
building only in 1 Cor. 3:9 and 2 Cor. 5:1 (See below, 5); otherwise it denotes the
process of building and has the same meaning as the vb.
(a) The term describes the apostolic activity (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; 12:19) against
the background of OT models (cf. Jer. 1:10; 24:6; especially the opposition of
“destroy” and “build up’’). 1 Cor. 3:5-17 also belongs here. In this passage Paul
combines two images, that of planting and that of building, in order to illustrate the
process of building the “temple of God” (the Christian community; v. 16) in one
great allegory.
(b) Apart from the activity of the apostle, oikodomeo is used to describe the
growth (— Grow) and expansion of the community through the Spirit. “oikodome
denotes the goal of knowledge, yet also the inner growth of the community and
252
HOUSE
the content and purpose of its liturgical life and its meetings’ (O. Michel, TDNT V
141). Therefore, there is one rule which applies to everything which happens within
the community: it must serve to build up the community (1 Cor. 14:12, 17, 26;
Rom. 14:19; 15:2; 1 Thess. 5:11; Eph. 4:29). Thus the — gifts of — grace and
offices are judged according to what they contribute to the building up of the
community (1 Cor. 14:3-5; Eph. 4:12). Paul scolds the Corinthians: ‘““Knowledge
puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1). The enthusiasts in Corinth probably had
a slogan, ““Knowledge builds up,’’ which Paul is here correcting. Similarly in
1 Cor. 10:23 Paul corrects the Corinthian slogan, panta exestin, ‘“‘All things are
lawful’, by urging people to ask themselves whether their actions are conducive to
building up the community.
(c) It is striking that the positive use of the word always refers to the community.
Paul uses sharp words (cf. 1 Cor. 14:19) to criticize the man who speaks in a tongue
on his own to “edify [oikodomei] himself” (1 Cor. 14:4). Edification which is not
aimed at serving others is self-centred and pointless.
4. While 1 Cor. 3 mixes the images of planting and building, a further image
appears alongside that of building in Eph. 4:12, 16, the image of the — body of
Christ. This hints at gnostic ideas and leads to the thought that the building grows
(like an organism). The same idea of the building “‘growing”’ (the corner stone of
which, Jesus Christ has indeed already been put in position; — Rock) appears in
Eph. 2:19 ff. (cf. also Ps. 118:22f.; Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10f.; Lk. 20:17; Acts
4:7; 1 Pet. 2:7). To be built into this growing building, on which God himself is
building, means to be put in as a “‘living stone” (1 Pet. 2:5). All these passages are
concerned with the unity and holiness of the temple of God, the Christian com-
munity.
5. 2 Cor. 5:1 is the only passage where oikodomé is used as an anthropological
term in a sense which, at least at first sight, is individualistic. The transient tent
of the earthly body is here contrasted with an eternal oikodomé, prepared by
God, not made with hands.
6. The compounds synoikodomeo (build together; pass. be built into [Eph. 2:22])
and epoikodomeé (build on something, build further) underline once again by the
prepositions used the idea of fellowship which is contained in the concept of
“building up’’. Believers are rooted and grounded in Christ (Col. 2:7). The Chris-
tian community is built up together in the co-operation of all the participants
(1 Cor. 3:10—4), and in unity with apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20), to become the
one holy community of the Lord.
J. Goetzmann
| , ean oikovopia (oikonomia), management, office; oikovdmoc
a | (oikonomos), steward; oikovoyé@ (oikonomed), manage,
administer, plan.
CL oikonomia, attested from Xen. and Plato on, denoted primarily the management
of a household, but was soon extended to the administration of the state (the
title of one of Xen.’s books), and finally was used for every kind of activity which
results from the holding of an office.
253
HOUSE
oikonomos (from Aesch. on) was used of people, and has a more concrete mean-
ing. It denotes the house-steward, and then by extension the managers of individual
departments within the household, e.g. the porter, the estate manager, the head
cook, the accountant, all domestic officials who were mostly recruited from among
the slaves. Similarly, oikonomed means to manage as a house-steward, order,
regulate.
OT The occurrence of the words in the LXX does not give much help towards
understanding the NT concept. oikonomia only occurs in Isa. 22:19, 21, and
then in the original meaning of administration, office. oikonomos appears some-
what more frequently and is likewise used in the technical sense of the word for a
court official, chiefly the royal palace governor (‘al habbayit, e.g. Eliakim in 2 Ki.
18:18, 37; 19:2; Isa. 36:3, 22; 37:2; cf. also 1 Ki. 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; Est. 1:8; 8:9).
NT In the NT, too, the word-group does not appear at all frequently: oikonomia
occurs 9 times, oikonomos 10 times and oikonomeo only once (Lk. 16:2).
Nevertheless, something like a specific NT usage has been established which has
two main different aspects.
1. (a) The words are used in their technical sense to denote the occupation of
household and estate managers and their tasks (Lk. 12:42; 16:1 ff.; cf. the use as a
title with the name in Rom. 16:23, “Erastus the city treasurer’ [cf. H. J. Cadbury,
“Erastus of Corinth’, JBL 50, 1931, 42-58]). Gal. 4:2 also belongs in this category.
Here oikonomos is used to describe man’s age of minority before the sending of
Christ, but it also serves within the metaphor as the designation of an occupation,
in order to clarify a legal concept: ‘‘But he is under guardians [epitropous| and
trustees [oikonomous| until the date set by the father’ (RSV). In Lk., the only
gospel in which oikonomos and oikonomia appear, oikonomos is used, alternately
with doulos, slave (Lk. 12:42 ff.; cf. par. Matt. 24:45 ff.). Admittedly all the pass-
ages in Lk. occur in parables, so one can on this ground speak in a certain sense of
a metaphorical use of the words.
({Ed.] Interesting light on the parable in Lk. 16:1-17 has been shed by J. D. M.
Derrett, ““The Parable of the Unjust Steward”, NTS 7, 1961, 198-219, reprinted in
Law in the New Testament, 1970, 48-77. Making extensive use of Jewish laws and
customs in the light of later sources, Derrett puts forward a rationale of the parable.
The Mosaic Law forbade the taking of interest on loans from fellow Jews [Exod.
22:25; Lev. 25:36; Deut. 23:19 f.]. The Pharisees who had considerable business
concerns found ways of evading the intention of the law without transgressing the
letter. They argued that the law was concerned with protecting the destitute and
not with business enterprises for mutual profit. So long as a man had some of the
commodity which he wished to borrow he was not destitute. The bills in the parable
preserve the letter of the law by not mentioning interest but only the amount to
be repaid in terms of commodities. The steward who was legally entitled to act in
his master’s name saw an opportunity to make provision for his future needs by
ingratiating himself with his master’s debtors. He simply cancelled the interest
and got the debtors to sign new notes stating the original amount of principal to be
repaid. The master was quick to appreciate the shrewdness of the move. For it not
only helped to feather the unjust steward’s nest, but it also put the master right in
the eyes of the law. By forfeiting the illegal exorbitant interest he was at least
254
HOUSE
conforming to the requirements of the law. In its context the parable is a reminder
to the disciples to exercise stewardship of this world’s goods [— Possessions, art.
mamonas], so that when mammon fails “they” [i.e. the poor, or possibly even God]
may receive them “‘in the eternal habitations’”’ [v. 9]. The following verses emphasize
the point that while wealth is not to be sought for its own sake, wise and diligent
stewardship of it in the master’s service is important. Faithful stewardship in this
determines whether God will entrust to the disciple true riches [vv. 10 f.].)
(b) The position is similar in the rest of the NT. In 1 Cor. 4:1 Paul uses oikonomos
metaphorically to describe the apostolic task and, just as in the gospels, alongside
doulos. Also as in the gospels (Lk. 12:42; 16:10 f.; Matt. 25:21 ff.; cf. Lk. 19:17 ff.),
1 Cor. 4:2 names faithfulness as the essential requirement in a steward. In the same
way Tit. 1:7 requires that “a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless.’’ In
1 Pet. 4:10 all the members of the community, as recipients of the gifts of grace,
are called “‘stewards of God’s varied grace.”
(c) To understand the concepts of oikonomia and oikonomos one must refer to
their roots in the concept of the house, as it is in the NT (— oikos). God’s people,
God’s community, is his house, which he builds up through the work of those he
has called to the task, to whom he entrusts the stewardship of the house. They
are not to look upon these household affairs as their own; they are merely stewards
of the gifts entrusted to them and have to give an account of their stewardship
(Lk. 16:2; cf. the parable of the pounds, Lk. 19:11 ff., cf. Matt. 25:14 ff., which
must be taken into account in the explanation of the concept, even though oikono-
mos does not appear in them). In addition to the gifts of the Spirit (1 Pet. 4:10) it is
above all the — gospel which is thought of as something entrusted to stewards.
Thus in 1 Cor. 4:1 Paul introduces himself and his fellow-workers as ‘‘servants
of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.’’ Likewise in 1 Cor. 9:17 Paul calls
the preaching of the gospel a “‘commission” (oikonomia) from which he cannot
withdraw. Col. 1:25 and Eph. 3:2 perhaps also belong in this category. In these
passages the divine office committed to the apostle is under discussion. Admittedly
there could be some doubt in both cases whether the meaning here is not “plan of
salvation”’ (see below, 2).
2. The use of the word oikonomia moves in a second direction in the sense of
God’s plan of salvation. This meaning, related to salvation history, could have
arisen on the basis of the breadth of meaning of the Gk. word (see above, 1), which
can denote the plans and arrangements of the authorities as well as measures through
which the help of heavenly powers can be obtained (e.g. in the magical papyri
referred to by O. Michel, 7TDNT V 152). In Eph. it is used for God’s plan of
salvation, which was hidden from eternity in God (Eph. 3:9), and now, in the
fullness of time, has been realized in Christ (Eph. 1:10). The soteriological sense
of the concept figured alongside other uses in the later patristic literature (e.g.
Justin, Dial. 30, 3; 45, 4; Irenaeus, Haer. 1, 10, 3; 4, 33, 7; see Lampe, 940-3).
3. The first and second meanings of the term are nevertheless not completely
independent. Because God allows his plan of salvation to be proclaimed through
men (1 Cor. 4:1; cf. the use of mystérion, — secret, here and in Eph. 3:9), the work
of the oikonomos is rooted in the divine oikonomia. Just as — time has its function
in God’s plan, a definite period of time is given to the steward, even though he may
not himself know how long it is (Lk. 12:46). At the end of it he must render his
255
House/HumILity
account. Thus on the basis of God’s plan of salvation — time itself is a gift en-
trusted to men, to be used (Col. 4:5; Eph. 5:15 f.) and managed responsibly.
J. Goetzmann
— Body, — Church, — Priest, — Serve, ~ Temple, > Tent
(a). S. Aalen, “ ‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels”, N7S 8, 1961-62,
215-40; K. Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants ?, 1963; A. Badawy, Architecture in
Ancient Egypt and the Near East, 1966; J. E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian
Haustafel, 1972; J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 1970, 48-77; N. Hillyer, “‘ ‘Spiritual
Milk ... Spiritual House’”’, TB 20, 1969, 126; J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four
Centuries, 1960; and The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland, 1963;
O. Michel, oikos etc., TDNT 119-59; J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, I-IJ, 1926, 46-96;
J. Reumann, ‘“Oikonomia-Terms in Paul in comparison with Lucan Heilsgeschichte’, NTS 13,
1966-67, 147-67; E. H. Robertson, ‘“‘The House Church” in Basileia, Festschrift for W. Freytag,
19617, 366 ff.; H. G. Stigers, ““House”’, ZPEB III 217-21 (discusses structure of houses in the
east); R. de Vaux, ‘“‘Family Institutions”, Ancient Israel, 1961, 19-61.
(b). H. Brattgard, Jm Haushalt Gottes, 1964; G. Delling, ‘“Zur Taufe von ‘Hausern’ im Urchris-
tentum’’, NovT 7, 1965, 285 ff.; E. Friedel, “Der neutestamentliche oikos-Begriff in seiner Bedeut-
ung fiir den Gemeindeaufbau’’, in Festschrift for M. Mitzenheim, 1961; H. Galley, ““Das ‘Haus’
im Neuen Testament”’, Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenzeitung 15, 1961, 201 ff.; E. Jenni, bayit
THAT | 307-13; E. Kasemann, Leib und Leib Christi, 1933; E. Stauffer, ““Zur Kindertaufe in der
Urkirche”’, Deutsches Pfarrerblatt, 1949, 152 ff.; A. Strobel, ‘““Der Begriff des Hauses im griechi-
schen und r6mischen Privatrecht”, ZNW 56, 1965, 91 ff.; P. Vielhauer, Oikodomé. Das Bild vom
Bau in der christlichen Literatur vom Neuen Testament bis Clemens Alexandrinus, 1940; P. Weigandt,
“Zur sogenannten ‘Oikosformel’ ”’, NovT 6, 1963, 49 ff.
Humility, Meekness
[mpadcs mpavc¢ (prays), gentle, humble, considerate, meek;
mpabdtns (prayptes), gentleness, humility, considerateness,
meekness; zpaiiadia (praypathia), gentleness; émieixnyc (epieikés), mild, yielding,
gentle, kind, forbearing; ézei(Kela (epieikeia), mildness, forbearance, gentleness,
graciousness.
CL prays (from Homer on) is etymologically linked with the Gothic frjyon to love,
frionds, friend, and means friendly, mild, gentle. The noun praytés (from Thuc.
on) and praypathia, derived from praypatheia, means gentle, mild friendliness.
The virtually synonymous epieikés, and the noun epieikeia are derived either from
eikos, becoming, decent, or from eiko, to yield, give way, and mean (from Homer
on) the proper way of life, or (from Thuc. on) forbearance, indulgence, mildness.
Words from the prays group are used of things (e.g. mild words, soothing medi-
cine, actions and feelings), animals (tame) and people (benevolent). It is a quality
shown by friends, while stern harshness may be expected from an enemy.
epieikés, together with its derivatives, was originally an expression for the
balanced, intelligent, decent outlook in contrast to licentiousness. Then it was used
for a considerate, thoughtful attitude in legal relationships which was prepared to
mitigate the rigours of justice, with its laws and claims, in contrast to the attitude
which demands that rights, including one’s own, should be upheld at all costs.
Both concepts are opposed to unbridled anger, harshness, brutality and self-
expression. They represent character traits of the noble-minded, the wise man who
256
HUMILITY
remains meek in the face of insults, the judge who is lenient in judgment, and the
king who is kind in his rule. Hence they appear often in pictures of the ideal ruler
and in eulogies on men in high positions.
In Gk. and Hel. philosophy both concepts express social virtues and ideals of
high value. Aristot. considered that they were the happy mean between passion
and lack of feeling (TDNT VI 646).
OT |. epieikeia is found 10 times in the LXX and epieikés, including the adv., 6
times, without any real Heb. equivalent. They are used to describe God’s
gracious gentleness in his rule (1 Sam. 12:22; Ps. 86:5; Wis. 12:18), and also the
actions of a king (2 Macc. 9:27), of a prophet (2 Ki. 6:3), and of the pious (Wis.
2:19).
2. prays, found 19 times in the LXX, translates ‘ani (3 times), poor, afflicted,
humble; and more generally its later variant ‘andw, poor, humble, meek. The fact
that the LXX can translate ‘andadw (21 times in the OT) and ‘ani (65 times in the OT)
also by penés and ptochos (— Poor) and — tapeinos shows that the Heb. terms had
a much wider connotation which is not satisfied by any of the LXX renderings. The
poor were those in Israel who were without landed property. They were wrongfully
restricted, disinherited, and deprived of the fullness which God willed (~ Poor, art.
penés, OT 3). Hence they were often the victims of unscrupulous exploitation (Isa.
32:7; Ps. 37:14; Job 24:4). In a general sense ‘dni denotes the defenceless, those
without rights, the oppressed, those who are cheated, exploited and cursed (cf.
Pss. 9 and 10).
Yahweh, however, takes the part of the ‘ani (Exod. 22:21-24; Deut. 24:14 f.),
-as do the prophets (Isa. 3:14f.; Amos 2:7; 8:4; Zech. 7:10) and the wisdom
literature (Prov. 14:21; 22:22; 31:9, 20). Since Yahweh is the God of those without
rights (Pss. 25:9; 149:4; 34:2[3]), he hears and comforts those who find no mercy
among their fellow-men (Isa. 29:19; Job 36:15) and will finally reverse all that is
not now in their favour (Isa. 26:6; Pss. 37:11; 147:6). Hence ‘ani and particularly
‘anaw change their meaning from those who are materially poor, and become the
self-chosen religious title of those who in deep need and difficulty humbly seek
help from Yahweh alone, or have found it there (e.g. Pss. 40:17[18]; 102[102:1],
title; Zeph. 2:3; 3:12; Isa. 41:17; 49:13; 66:2). In the Qumran texts they are used
generally of the community members (— Poor, art. ptdchos, oT 5). Hence the word
is Sometimes used with the meaning meek, humble, modest (Num. 12:3; Eccl. 6:8).
In the messianic passages of the OT God’s king is depicted as the helper of all
who have been deprived of their rights and of all the needy (Pss. 45:4[5]; 72; Isa.
11:4; 61:1). The term ‘ani is never applied to God, but in Zech. 9:9 (cf. Num.
12:3; Sir. 45:4) it is a title of honour given to the messiah. As he rides the animal
used by the socially insignificant, his way leads to the poor and those deprived of
their rights. ([Ed.] Although rulers of Israel had ridden asses at an earlier period
in history [Jdg. 5:10; 10:4; 12:14; 2 Sam. 16:2] the horse was the appropriate
mount for the mighty [but note the scorn of the war-horse in v. 10; cf. Isa.
2:7; 31:1]. The ass was the appropriate mount for one who comes on a mission
of peace [cf. J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1972, 165 f.].)
The sense of ‘ani is transformed in a number of passages, including Zech. 9:9,
which the LXX renders by prays and thus substitutes for the more passive Heb.
257
HUMILITY
concept a Hel. act. and ethical meaning. A positive lack is transformed into the
praiseworthy virtue of “gentleness” or “humility”. This is the dominant concept
in Sir. 1:27; 4:8; 10:28 etc., and Josephus Ant. 19, 7, 3; 3, 6, 7; 5, 2, 12; 6, 1, 2;
7, 6, 1. ({Tr.] However, since the 2nd and 3rd of the Sir. passages are found in the
Heb. original with this meaning, it shows that the Hel. concept had influenced
Palestinian Heb. by the early 2nd cent. B.c.)
NT The words are found in the NT in Paul, Jas., 1 Pet., Acts (once epieikeia) and
Matt. (3 times prajs). Clear OT influence is found only in Matt. For the rest,
Hel. concepts are dominant. How far NT thought is based on the LXX and its OT
background is not clear. Attention may be drawn to two points.
1. Both prajtés and epieikeia are marks of Christ’s rule. In contrast to the repre-
sentatives of a political messianism Jesus repudiated the use of force to bring about
the rule of God. His activity on earth is that of the OT king who brings salvation
without using force or war (Matt. 11:29; 21:5 = Zech. 9:9). Since, however,
Matt. 11:29 has Sem. thinking behind it (cf. Isa. 42:2 f.; 53:1 ff.; Zech. 9:9; cf.
TDNT V 993, n. 289), prays here suggests ‘dni, in the Heb. sense, and so stresses
the human humility of the messiah. Luther saw him as a “‘Beggar-king’’ who had
no means of enforcing his rights and who ultimately had to suffer all manner of
injustice. In 2 Cor. 10:1 Paul mentions prajtés and epieikeia as characteristics
of Jesus’ attitude to men during his life on earth, and holds them out as an example
to the church.
2. The words now express an attitude demanded of the Christian, though they
are applied also to non-Christians (Acts 24:4, where epieikeia is used by the Jewish
spokesman Tertullus in addressing the procurator Felix; 1 Pet. 2:18, of masters of
slaves). They stand in the lists of virtues as concrete expressions of Christian love
(Gal. 5:23; 1 Tim. 6:11; 1 Pet. 3:4) and of “the wisdom from above”’ (Jas. 3:17).
They state the rule for the way in which Christians and non-Christians should live
together (Phil. 4:5; Tit. 3:2). They also apply in dealing with Christians who have
committed sins (1 Cor. 4:21; Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:25), and in the midst of enmity
and persecution (1 Pet. 3:16). Christians should set an example of this (Jas. 3:13),
especially — bishops (1 Tim. 3:3).
({Ed.] prays occurs in the third Beatitude: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall
inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). David Hill suggests that they are the same as the
poor (v. 3) and that since the vb. kléronomed appears in Deut. 4:1, 16:20, and
Ps. 68:36 (LXX) with reference to possessing the land of Israel, the thought here is
_of possessing or inheriting the new promised land (The Gospel of Matthew, 1972,
111). Just as obedience and righteousness are, for the Deuteronomist, the condi-
tions of entrance into the promised land, so humble obedience to the teaching
contained in the Beatitudes is the condition of entering the new land of God’s
kingdom. The verse takes up the theme of Ps. 37:11. Hill notes that the Ps., the
themes of which are close to the whole series of the Beatitudes, was taken by the
Qumran sect as a prophecy in process of fulfilment through the establishment of
their messianic community (4QpPs37; cf. op. cit., 112). The Beatitude promises
that those who are now oppressed and despised and have nothing to call their own
(like Israel prior to the conquest of Canaan) will enter the — inheritance of God’s
rule upon earth. At the same time it is a veiled statement about Jesus himself.)
258
HUMILITY
When the NT advocates prajtés, it does not imply an attitude dependent solely
on the human will. It is a sign of salvation: of “calling”? (Eph. 4:2), election (Col.
3:12), and the work of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:23). It is not a virtue in the Hel.
sense, but a possibility of life and action given by God. It is not an aspect of human
temperament. It comes about when men are linked with Christ and are conformed
to his — image. W. Bauder
[tamed Tamelvoc (tapeinos), lowly, humble; tazeivdw (tapeinod),
make low, humble; tamzéivmaic (tapeindsis), abasement,
humiliation; tanzelvo¢dpwv (tapeinophron), humble-minded; tazetvodpoatbvn
(tapeinophrosyné), lowliness of mind, humility.
CL tapeinos was originally used (from Pindar in the Sth cent. B.c. on) with the sense
of low-lying. Metaphorical uses were soon developed: (a) low socially, poor,
of little social position and influence (Hdt., 5th cent. B.c. onwards), powerless,
unimportant; (b) as a result of one’s social standing, with slavish outlook, a syno-
nym of not free; (c) despondent, downcast (Thuc., 5th cent. B.c. onwards; cf. Eng.
“T’m feeling down”’); (d) in Socratic and post-Socratic ethical teaching the word
was separated from its social links, but retained a depreciatory connotation. Men
should avoid the two extremes of arrogance, provocation and pride (Aybris), and of
grovelling, servile behaviour and base flattery. (e) Occasionally the word is used
with a good connotation in individual, social, ethical and religious contexts. Where
this is so, it does not mean humble, but unassuming (in Xen.), obedient, conforming
one’s behaviour to the righteous laws of the gods (Aesch., Plato). In all these uses
there remains the memory of the original physical meaning of below, low, in
comparison with that which is above or higher.
The vb. tapeinoo (from Hippocrates, 5th cent. B.c. onwards) represents in all its
varieties of meaning the various shades of meaning of the adj.: to level, humble
(socially, politically, economically), harm, make small, make humble, discourage
(with fate or life as subject), make one obedient, or self-effacing, make a person
obey a regulation (of the reason) (and also the appropriate pass. forms). The
reflex. form with heauton and the mid. (from Diod.Sic., lst cent. B.c. onwards used
also for mental states) meaning humble oneself, demean oneself, are used normally
only in a derogatory sense. Yet Philodemus of Gadara (lst cent. B.c.) demands that
those who humbled themselves, should be comforted and lifted up (TDNT VIII 4)
and Plut. (1st cent. A.D.) mentions the custom of humbling oneself before the gods
by covering the head during sacrifice and prayer (JT DNT VIII 5).
tapeinotés (Thuc., 5th cent. B.c. onwards) is found only in secular contexts apart
from Sir. 13:20. It generally conveys the experience of humiliation, lowliness, and
powerlessness, while tapeindsis (from Plato, 5th—-4th cents. B.c. onwards) suggests
rather the process of humiliation, etc.
The compounds with phronein, think, judge, be disposed, are the vb. tapeino-
Phronein, the adj. tapeinophron, and the noun tapeinophrosyné. They first occur in
secular literature in the Ist and 2nd cents. A.D. (Josephus, Plutarch, Epictetus),
always with a depreciatory connotation: e.g. to think poorly, ill; to be ill-disposed,
faint-hearted, or weakly; to have a servile mind. The LXX, however, which does
259
HUMILITY
not use the noun, has the vb. (which means be humble, modest) once in Ps. 131(130):2
for the MT quieten the mind, and the adj. once in Prov. 29:23, meaning lowly in
spirit in a good sense. The opposite in both passages and in Sir. 13:20 (see above) is ©
—> pride, insolence and arrogance.
OT The fundamental difference between the Gk. and the biblical use of these words
has already been indicated. In the Gk. world, with its anthropocentric view
of man, lowliness is looked on as shameful, to be avoided and overcome by act and
thought. In the NT, with its theocentric view of man, the words are used to describe
those events that bring a man into a right relationship with God and his fellow-man
(cf. TDNT VIII 11 f.).
|. tapeinos and its cognates are found about 270 times in the LXX, the adj.
66 times, the vb. c. 160 times, and tapeindsis 40 times. For the compounds see
above. They represent 7 Heb. roots: by far the most common is ‘andh (86 times),
to oppress, afflict, humble (— prays); Sapal (42 times), to become low, be abased;
kana‘ (15 times), be subdued, humbled; daka@’, dakah (13 times), crush, humiliate;
dal, dalal (7 times), low, insignificant, helpless, downcast; sahah (6 times), bow
down, crouch; yiggdah (5 times), vex, grieve. ““nawdah (derived from ‘anéh), humility,
the attitude of the mind of the one who bends down, occurs only 4 times (Prov.
15:33; 18:12; 22:4; Zeph. 2:3).
2. In its translation of these Heb. concepts the LXX uses the full range of mean-
ing of this word-group and adds a few variants of its own; e.g. to humble a woman
in a sexual sense (2 Sam. 13:12; Deut. 21:14; Ezek. 22:10 f.); to rape (Gen. 34:2,
etc.); to bow one’s soul, i.e. fast (e.g. Lev. 16:29; Isa. 58:3). But above all the words
occur in expression of belief in what Yahweh has done. It is God himself by his acts
in history who brings down the proud and arrogant, and chooses and rescues the
humiliated. This recognition is expressed in a number of ways.
(a) The prophets expressed it in warnings of judgment (cf. Amos 2:6b, 7 with
2:6a, 13 ff.; 8:6 with 8:7f.; Isa.2:9, 11, 17; 5:15; 10:33 f.; 14:32, against the
Philistines; Zeph. 2:3, Ezek. 21 :26[31]) and in promises (Zeph. 3:12; Ezek. 17:24;
Isa. 49:13; 53:8 [In his humiliation his judgment was taken away’’, LXX]; Isa.
54:11; 66:2b; 26:6).
(b) The historical books see it in events. This is shown in their general theological
attitudes and in their corresponding choice of language (Jdg. 4:23; 6:15 ff., choice
of Gideon; | Sam. 1:11, 16, Hannah’s prayer, and 2:7 ff., her song of praise;
7:13; 18:23 ff.; 2 Sam. 22:28, in David’s thanksgiving for victory; 1 Chr. 17:10,
in the promise given to David, 1 Ki. 8:35 par. 2 Chr. 6:26; cf. Ps. 18:27 ({MT
28; LXX 17:28]). These speeches, prayers and songs have a common characteristic
theme.
(c) The Pss. and Lam. repeat it in their certainty expressed in their prayers (e.g.
Pss. 10:17 f. [LXX 9:38 f.]; 25:18 [LXX 24:18]; 31:7 [MT 31:8; LXX 30:8];
34:18 [MT 34:19; LXX 33:19]; 38:8, 22 [MT 38:9, 23; LXX 37:9, 23]; 44:19,
25 f. [MT 44:20, 26 f.; LXX 43:20, 26 f.]; 51:17 [MT 51:19]; 74:21 [LXX 73:21]).
There is the frequent parallelism with — poor. In Ps. 82 [LXX 81] the relationship
of v. 3 with vv. 5ff. shows that the gods are incapable of giving justice to the lowly,
and so God himself must judge (v. 8). Other examples are Pss. 90:3 [LXX 89:3],
260
HUMILITY
where dakka’, meaning crushed matter, dust, is translated by tapeindsis; 102:15—20
[MT 102:16-21; LXX 101:16-21], especially v. 17; 113:5-9 [LXX 112:5-9], a
song of praise; 116:10 [LXX 115:1], cf. with v. 1 [LXX 114:1 f.], a hymn of thanks;
119 [LXX 118]; 50, 67, 71, 75, 92, the law of God comforts in lowliness; 107
[LXX 106]; 131:2 [LXX 130:2], 136:23 [LXX 135:23], a hymn of thanks; 138:6
[LXX 137:6], cf. 113:5-9; 142:6 [MT 142:7; LXX 141:7]; Lam. 1:5b, 8b, 12c,
20; 2:5c, 18, 20; 3:32—34 (cf. with vv. 31, 37 f.); Isa. 25:1-5S.
(d) Proverbs in the wisdom literature speak of humility as the fruit of experience
and as arule for life: e.g. cf. Job 5:11 with 8:12, 21 (LXX and Vulg. only, not MT);
Prov. 3:34 (the LXX is more explicit than the MT); 11:2, cf. v. 1; 15:33 (MT
“humility’’), par. to “the fear of the Lord” (the LXX has tapeinos only in some
MSS, but cf. 16:2 where it is lacking in the MT); in 16:19 tapeinosis is par. to
praythymos, gentleness; 18:22; 2:4, the LXX translates humility [MT] by wisdom;
cf. also 25:7; 29:23; Eccles. 10:6; Sir. 7:11; 10:15 ff.;, 11:12 f.
3. The members of the Qumran sect called themselves the — poor, and in the
Community Rule virtuous humility is mentioned along with loving kindness (the
opposites of anger and grumbling), truth, right thinking, faithfulness, unity and
patience as the great virtue of the community (1QS 2:24; 4:3; 5:3, 25). But this
attitude stands alongside a hatred for the ruling sons of darkness (1QS 9:22; 11:1).
Humility is the proper attitude before God: “‘his iniquity shall be expiated by the
spirit of uprightness and humility” (1QS 3:8) and man’s humility submits to God’s
chastisement (1QH 17:22); “‘his flesh . . . is made clean by the humble submission
of his soul to all the precepts of God” (1QS 3:8).
4. Apocalyptic literature sees in humility the eschatological attitude to which
the promise of the reward and the help of God are addressed (Test.Gad. 5:3; 2 Esd.
8 : 47-54).
5. For the rabbis, humility also had a high place in the scale of virtues that men
should attempt to attain (cf. SB I 191-194). A humble spirit was regarded as the
characteristic sign of the Jew (cf. especially the polemic against the pride of the
Gentiles, Pirke Aboth 5:21). Jesus’ teaching indicates the discrepancy between this
high theoretical claim and arrogant Rab. and Pharisaic practice (Matt. 23:1 ff.;
Lk. 18:9-14). They were humble among themselves, but they considered ignorance
of the — law as due either to sin or to God’s disfavour. They equated human
effort with God’s grace, and so had a faulty concept of God and of themselves.
NT Members of the word-group are found 34 times in the NT: tapeinos 8 times,
tapeinoo 14 times, tapeindsis 4 times, the compound tapeinophron once, and the
noun tapeinophrosyné 7 times (only in Acts and the epistles). Their distribution is:
Matt. 4 times, Lk. 7 times, Acts twice, Rom. once, 2 Cor. 4 times, Eph. once, Phil.,
4 times, Col. 3 times, Jas. 4 times, 1 Pet. 4 times. Thus no members of the word-
group are found in Mk., the Johannine writings or epistles other than those men-
tioned above.
1. In Matt. and Lk. the words are closely linked with the proclamation of the
eschatological breaking-in of the kingly rule of God. This is the new element in the
frequent use of OT and Jewish texts. Lk. introduces the theme already in the intro-
ductory chs. of his Gospel. The mother of Jesus in the Magnificat praised the
grandeur of God in OT phrases (1 Sam. 1:11; cf. Ps. 113:5-9), “for he has regarded
261
HUMILITY
the low estate of his handmaiden”’ (Lk. 1:48), where handmaiden, i.e. slave, inter-
prets low estate (cf. v. 38). “He has .. . exalted those of low degree’”’ (Lk. 1:52; cf.
1 Sam. 2:7; Job 5:11; Ps. 75:7[8]; Ezek. 21:26[MT 21:31]). The work of John the
Baptist (Lk. 3:1 ff.) is then presented as preparing for the coming of God, and in
accordance with the prophecy of Isa. 40:3 ff.: “every mountain and hill shall be
brought low” (Lk. 3:5). |
He who thus came went the way of humility (Matt. 11:29, see below). He could,
therefore, (a) in his warning against desire for status (Lk. 14:11; cf. Mk. 10:15;
Matt. 18:4; 1 Pet. 5:5; Prov. 3:34; 25:7), (b) in his controversy with the Pharisees
(Lk. 18:14), and (c) in his attack on them and the scribes (Matt. 23:12), promise that
he who humbles himself (tapeinoun heauton) will be exalted at the last by God. (The
passive is used to avoid the mention of God’s name.) At the same time he threat-
ened the proud with the last judgment, each time using the same proverb (cf. 1
Sam. 2:7; 2 Sam. 22:28; Ezek. 21:26[31]; Sir. 7:11) but giving it in the eschato-
logical situation a quite new meaning (A. Dihle, RAC III 748).
The foundation of this promise, admonition and warning is found in Jesus’ own
way of life, as he interpreted it in his invitation in Matt. 11:28 ff. He is ““meek”’
(prays) and “‘lowly in heart” (tapeinos té kardia). The two thoughts stand in
parallel and show that Jesus was submissive before God, completely dependent on
him, and devoted to him, and at the same time humble before men whose servant
and helper he had become (Lk. 22:27; Mk. 10:45; Matt. 20:28; cf. W. Grund-
mann, TDNT VIII 20). That is why he can call those who labour and are heavy
laden to himself and offer them eschatological rest as they follow him; contrast
Sir. 51: 23-30 with its call to follow simply the ethical example set by the teacher
of the law (cf. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 19638, 386 ff.). ‘“The highest
dignity of Jesus and his willingness to accept the cross... are one” (J. Schniewind,
Das Evangelium nach Matthadus, NTD 8, 1960°, ad loc.). See also Phil. 2:6 ff. below.
Matt. 18:1—5 with its teaching on humility shows that Jesus’ call to discipleship
should not be confused with ethical attainment. The demand to humble oneself
like the child placed among the disciples does not mean that one should make
oneself lower than one actually is. Rather, one should know, like the child, how
lowly one really is. Humility is to know how lowly we really are before God. At the
same time the use of the word “child” is a reminder of the — Father in > heaven.
This kind of humility and lowliness are joy and bliss (J. Schniewind, ad loc.; cf. J.
Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 19637, 190 f.), for they permit one to share in the
royal rule of heaven.
2. (a) The central position of the Saviour’s invitation in Matt. corresponds to
that of the hymn to Christ in Phil. 2:6—11 in Paul’s letters. In the description of
Jesus Christ’s work from his self-emptying (v. 7—> Empty, art. kenos), through
his self-humbling (v. 8c gives Paul’s decisive addition to the hymn he had taken
over), to his exaltation by God, all the main lines of the OT proclamation of God’s
sovereign control of history come into focus as they find their fulfilment. Here God
stands by his word. At the same time the self-humiliation of Jesus Christ inaugur-
ates the new life under his rule (vv. 10 f.). It is the basis of tapeinophrosyné, humility
(v. 3), willingness to serve, conforming to his example; cf. also v. 5, “have this mind
among yourselves... .’” The meaning of self-humiliation is doubly defined in Jesus
Christ. On the one hand, he became obedient unto death, even the uttermost shame
262
HUMILITY
of the cross. On the other hand, he had no other support than the incredible promise
of the faithfulness of God (cf. Pss. 22; 25:18; 31:17 [MT 31:8]; 90:3; 119:50, 92,
150; and especially Isa. 53:7-12, cf. H. W. Wolff, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum,
19523, 98 f.).
(b) Acts 8:35 expounds Isa. 53:7 f., quoted from the LXX, as referring to the
humiliation and exaltation of Jesus Christ (cf. H. W. Wolff, op. cit., 90 ff.).
(c) Paul understood his apostolic service to be one of following the Lord, who
gave him strength through his own exaltation won through self-humiliation
(Phil. 4:12 f.). Hence Paul knew “how to be abased”’ (tapeinousthai). This probably
refers to being hungry and in need, suffering want and affliction (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23-
29; 12:7-10). It may also include the physical work which, his enemies insinuated,
was a penance for some hidden sin, but which Paul defended on the grounds that
it enabled him to proclaim the gospel without charge (2 Cor. 11:7) and build up
the church by his teaching. (For use of the vb. in the sense of “‘confess one’s guilt”
cf. A. Schlatter, op. cit., 545.) Acts faithfully conveys Paul’s understanding of
his apostolic service in the statement, “serving the Lord with all humility and with
tears and with trials’ (Acts 20:19). Paul recognized God’s action both in humbling
him through the failures (2 Cor. 12:21) which were manifest in the continuing
strife (v. 20) and immorality (v. 21c) of the Corinthians, and in comforting those
who were humbled by strife and inner fears (2 Cor. 7:5 f.; cf. Isa. 49:13). In the
midst of the difficulties of his service Paul was supported by the — hope that the
coming Lord would transform our body of humiliation (to sé6ma tés tapeindseds
hémon, Phil. 3:21; “our lowly body’? RSV), i.e. our mortal body and make it like
his glorious body.
(d) In three passages in Paul’s letters words from this group are used with their
original derogatory sense, in each case ironically in a polemical context. In 2 Cor.
10:1 Paul quotes the taunt of his opponents that he was so “‘feeble”’ (tapeinos), when
he was “‘face to face’’ with them (NEB), but was bold when far away. In Col. 2:18,
23 he warns against the opponents who take pleasure in self-abasement, worship of
angels and asceticism, each time using tapeinophrosyné.
(e) Paul’s exhortation to humility is also rooted in the effective reality of Christ.
Rom. 12:16 (cf. v. 1) warns against haughtiness and recommends, “give your-
selves to humble tasks” (RSV mg.) or “associate with the lowly” (RSV tx., NEB) —
depending on whether fois tapeinois is taken as neut. or masc. Similarly Eph. 4:2
(cf. v.1) and Col. 3:12 (cf. v.1) enjoin willingness to serve (in each case tapeinophro-
syné; RSV; ““meekness”; NEB ‘‘gentleness’’) which unites the church and holds it
together (see above oT 3, on the community Rule at Qumran). Both passages use
tapeinophrosyné parallel to prajtés (— prays NT), and the latter speaks of putting
on willingness to serve like a garment (cf. below on 1 Pet. 5:5).
3. The exhortations in Jas. and 1 Pet. do not add anything new to the OT and
Pauline calls to humility. Jas. 1:9 f. speaks of the socially low, the poor, in contrast
to the rich. Those who belonged to them could boast of their exaltation, while the
rich, paradoxically, should boast that they were subject to death (tapeinosis, cf.
v. 10c). Both statements were made in the light “‘of the coming transformation of the
world’ (M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, KEK 15, 19568, ad loc.). Jas. 4: 6b, par.
1 Pet. 5:5c, is a quotation from Prov. 3:34 (LXX), which promises God’s favour
to the humble. Both draw the conclusion (Jas. 4:10 par. 1 Pet. 5:6): “‘Humble
263
HuMILITY/HUNGER
yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you” (cf. Gen. 16:9; Sir. 2:17). Since
no literary dependence between the two letters can be demonstrated, the similarity
points to “‘a common Christian exhortation” (TDNT VIII 19; cf. M. Dibelius,
op. cit., 30). 1 Pet. 5:5 contains the metaphor of putting on clothing: “Clothe
yourselves, all of you, with humility [tapeinophrosyné]” (cf. Jn. 13:4).
4. Gradually the concept of “humility” in the church was reduced from an
eschatological expectation and a manner of life consistent with it to a term describ-
ing an inclination to penance and fasting, and their practical expression, especially
in 1 Clem. and Hermas (cf. TDNT VIII 25 f.). H.-H. Esser
—> Empty, — Grace, — Love, — Patience, — Poor, — Pride
(a). A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, J-II, 1972; G. Bornkamm, ‘“‘On Understanding the
Christ-hymn (Philippians 2:6-11)’’, Early Christian Experience, 1969, 112-22; W. Grundmann,
tapeinos, TDNT VIII 1-26; B. Haring, The Law of Christ, I, 1961; II, 1963; F. Hauck, penés,
TDNT VI 37-40; F. Hauck and E. Bammel, ptéchos, TDNT VI 865-82; F. Hauck and S. Schulz,
prays, TDNT VI 645-51; D. Kidner, Psalms 1-72, 1973; and Psalms 73-150, TC, 1975; R. Leivestad,
‘* “The Meekness and Gentleness of Christ’ II Cor. x. 1”, NTS 12, 1965-66, 156-64; M. Maher,
‘“* “Take my yoke upon you’ (Matt. xi. 29)’, NTS 22, 1975-76, 97-103 ; W. Michaelis, pravpatheia,
TDNT V 939; C. F. D. Moule, ““The Manhood of Christ’, in S. W. Sykes and J. P. Clayton, eds.,
Christ, Faith and History, 1972, 95-110; H. Preisker, epieikeia, TDNT II 588 ff.; A. Stéger, ““Hu-
mility”’, EBT II 385-90; A. Weiser, The Psalms, 1962.
(b). A. Dihle, ‘““Demut’’, RAC III 735 ff.; R. A. Gauthier, Magnanimité, |’ Ideal de la Grandeur dans
Philosophie paienne et dans la Théologie chrétienne, 1951; A. Gelin, Les Pauvres de Jahvé, 1953;
L. Gilen, ““Die Demut des Christen nach dem Neuen Testament”, Zeitschrift fiir Askese und
Mystik 13, 1938, 266 ff.; A. von Harnack, “‘Sanftmut, Huld und Demut in der alten Kirche’’, in
Festschrift for J. Kaftan, 1920, 113-29; E. Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Pardanese im Neuen
Testament, WUNT 7, 1964; E. Kasemann, Die Legitimitdt des Apostels, 1956; E. Kutsch, ‘“*“ndwah
(Dissertation, Mainz), 1960; H.-J. Kraus, Die Psalmen, I-III, BKAT 15, 19724; E. Larsson, Christus
als Vorbild, 1967; J. Leipoldt, ““Vom Kinde in der alten Welt”, in Reich Gottes und Wirklichkeit,
Festschrift for E. Sommerlath, 1961, 343 ff.; R. Mehl, ‘““Sanftmut”, RGG* V 1363 f.; G. Mensching,
E. Kutsch, A. Benoit, R. Mehl, ‘““cDemut’’, RGG*® I 76-82; R. North, ‘‘ ‘Humilis corde’ in luce
Psalmorum’”’, Verbum Domini 28, 1950, 153-61; S. Rehrl, Die Wortgruppe zu griechisch tapeinos
und das Problem der Demut in der profan-griechischen Literatur im Vergleich zu Septuaginta and
Neuen Testament, 1961; and Das Problem der Demut in der profanischen Literatur im Vergleich zu
LXX und Neuen Testament, 1961; H. Rosman, “In omni humilitate’, Verbum Domini 21, 1941,
272-80; O. Schaffner, Christliche Demut, 1959; A. Schlatter, Jesu Dienst, 1904; F. Sinner, Die
christliche Demut, 1925; G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, FRLANT 82, 1962, 173 f.; K.
Thieme, Die christliche Demut, 1906; W. C. van Unnik, “‘Zur Bedeutung von tapeinoun tén psychén
bei den apostolischen Vatern’’, ZNW 44, 1952-53, 250 ff.; S. Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Laster-
kataloge im Neuen Testament, BZNW 25, 1959; and “‘Demut’’, EKL I 862 ff.; H. W. Wolff, Jesaja
53 im Urchristentum, 1952°.
Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink
Eating and drinking are basic to human life. In the world of the ancient east, which
suffered frequently from famines and droughts, they assume a particular import-
ance. Five different groups of words are examined here. Man’s need of sustenance
is denoted by the vbs. peinad, to hunger (cf. /imos, hunger), and dipsao, to thirst.
Satisfaction of hunger is denoted by esthid, to eat, and in a specialized sense by
geuomai, to taste, enjoy. The thing eaten is broma, food. pind, with its numerous
derivatives, denotes drinking. As time went on all these words acquired metaphor-
ical significance and were used to express spiritual nourishment or the lack of It.
264
HUNGER
[mend mélvaw (peinad), hunger; dlwdw@ (dipsad), to thirst;
— | diyoc (dipsos), thirst; Aiudc (limos), hunger, famine.
CL 1. peinad means to hunger; dipsao, to thirst; the corresponding nouns are limos,
famine and its effect, hunger, and dipsos, thirst. The range of meaning of these
words is not limited to physical want, but extends to the intellectual and spiritual
life (from Plato and Xenophon). They express a passionate longing for something
without which one cannot live, e.g. freedom, honour, fame, wealth, praise, en-
lightenment. This desire is often emphasized by bracketing hunger and thirst
together.
2. The ancients attributed famine to the wrath of the gods. Vegetation gods and
cults were therefore supposed to guarantee the provision of food (cf. the Canaanite
Baals). In the later mystery religions these old fertility gods satisfied men’s hunger
for enduring eternal — life.
It was the task of rulers (e.g. the pharaohs of Egypt) to protect their subjects
against hunger. But every case of hunger and thirst presented an obligation to help
whoever was in need.
3. Gk. philosophers generally attempted to educate their adherents to free
themselves from enslavement to the needs of the body. Thus the Stoics sought to
make themselves independent of all the vicissitudes of life by the practice of asceti-
cism, and the gnostics to free themselves from a sensual attachment to the world
through the denial of the body (which belongs to material world, alienated from
God), in order to attain to the realm of the spirit.
oT |. In the LXX peinad mostly translated the Heb. ra‘éb, to be hungry, but also
‘ayép, to be weary, faint or exhausted, and ya‘ép, to be weary or faint. Jimos
stands consistently for ra‘ab, hunger; dipsad and dipsos mostly for formations from
the root samé thirst(y), but also for siyyah, to be dry, and ‘ayép, weary, faint. While
peinao and dipsao or dipsos each occurs about 50 times in the LXX, /imos is attested
over 100 times. /imos denotes acute lack of food, famine; peinao stresses long
drawn-out hungering.
2. Hunger and thirst are reckoned as the worst forms of lack, and of the two thirst
is even more distressing than hunger in the sun-drenched east. Among the causes
is failure of the rains with consequent failure of the harvest (1 Ki. 17:1), so that
one can even speak of the thirst of the land. Hunger and thirst are also connected
with war, wanderings in the desert (Ps. 107:5), idleness (Prov. 19:15), and par-
ticularly godlessness (Ps. 34:10; Isa. 65:13; Sir. 40:9). God sends hunger and thirst
as a —> judgment and as a salutary means of —> humbling the godless attitudes of
men (Deut. 32:24; 2 Sam. 24:13; Ezek. 5:15 f.; as a punishment in — hell they
are not mentioned before 2 Esd. 8:59). In times of famine Israel sought help in
more fertile — Egypt (Gen. 12:10; 41:53 ff.; 42:1 ff.). But it was in times of need
(e.g. during the wandering in the wilderness, and in the land of Canaan) that Israel
learned that God was her real Saviour from need (Exod. 16:3 ff.; 17:3 ff.; cf. 1
Ki. 8:37 ff.). Yahweh takes up the cause of the hungry who belong to the dis-
possessed — poor (1 Sam. 2:5). While judgment is pronounced on those who are
filled, there is the promise of salvation for the hungry (Ps. 107:36 ff.; 146:7; Isa.
65:13). God demands from the devout a corresponding attitude to the poor (Isa.
265
HUNGER
58:7, 10; Ezek. 18:7, 16), among whom even their enemies must not be overlooked
(Prov. 25:21).
3. This word group is occasionally used metaphorically of thirst for God (Ps.
42:2; 63:1; 143:6) and of striving after wisdom (Sir. 51:24). Amos 8:11-13 speaks
of a hungering after the word of God alongside an actual famine: God can in the
end withhold everything as a punishment. Several passages directed to the Jewish
people during the Babylonian exile have particular significance. Though at present
discouraged (Isa. 40:27-31) and poor (41:17 f.; 49:9 f.; 55:1), they will be allowed
by God to return home. He will transform the arduous route through the desert
into an oasis journey (Isa. 41:19; 43:20; 48:21, as at the exodus), and their wasted
homeland itself into a “‘garden of salvation’? (Ezek. 34:29; cf. Isa. 35:1, 6 f.). This
material well-being includes the idea of spiritual salvation (Isa. 44:3; Jer.
31:12).
4. (a) In Philo Gk. and Jewish elements are mingled together. On the one hand,
he encourages moderation and the discipline of the body in order to concentrate
on the more important matter of satisfying the soul (Spec.Leg. 2, 201). On the other
hand, he calls hunger the ‘“‘most insupportable of all evils’? (Spec.Leg. 2, 201; cf.
TDNT VI 14).
(b) In Rab. Judaism hunger and thirst no longer come within the sphere of God’s
promises, but merely serve as inducements to better keeping of the law (e.g. Pss.
Sol. 5:1-12; 10:1-6; 13:7-10). The Rabbis still only understood times of need as
punishing or at best purifying, misfortunes which one attempted to counter by good
works (cf. SB II 643 f.; [V 536-558).
NT Of the terms discussed peinad occurs most frequently in the NT (about 25
times), chiefly in the synoptics and especially in Matt. Of the 16 occurrences of
dipsao in the NT, 9 are in the Johannine writings (Jn. and Rev.). /imos is used by a
variety of authors, but only 12 times in all.
OT and NT take man’s physical need very seriously. But it is not only the
stomach (— Belly) but the whole man that needs to be satisfied. External well-
being and inner salvation are most closely related. This explains the fact that many
NT statements about hunger and thirst show a peculiar ambiguity, making it
scarcely possible to distinguish the literal from the metaphorical.
1. The NT also speaks of famines (Lk. 4:25; Acts 7:11). They are among the
terrors of the end time (Matt. 24:7 par. Mk. 13:8, Lk. 21:10; Rev. 6:8; 18:8; cf.
Syr.Bar. 27:6), and the occasion of special measures of assistance (Acts 11:28).
Hunger can move a man to-— conversion, where questions about food raise
questions about faith (Lk. 15:14, 17).
2. (a) Lk., in particular, depicts Jesus as the advocate of the poor and hungry
(Lk. 1:53 = Ps. 107:9; Lk. 6:21), understanding hunger in the broadest sense.
Believers should not fear hunger, as if there were no God to help them. The present
order of things is questionable. In the future order God will act on behalf of the
needy. Therefore, Jesus calls them — blessed already in view of the coming day of
God, when he will bestow the — gifts of the time of salvation. For those who can
expect nothing from this world, and direct all their hope towards God, there will
be no more hunger (Lk. 6:21). There is no promise, however, for those who are
266
HUNGER
satisfied in this world. On the contrary, they are threatened with the prospect of
mourning and weeping (Lk. 6:25). Thus the Lucan Beatitudes and Woes (Lk. 6:21,
25) contrast the present hunger and deprivation of the poor, for whom is the pro-
mise of divine help and future salvation, with the future hunger of those who are at
present satisfied and rich, for whom there will be condemnation without promise
(cf. Lk. 16:19-31, the rich man and poor Lazarus; on this see J. D. M. Derrett,
‘Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings’’, Law in the New Testament, 1970,
78-99).
(b) The Beatitude of Matt. 5:6 understands hunger as “hunger and thirst for
righteousness.”’ In contrast to the self-righteousness of Jewish legalism “hunger
for righteousness’”’ means the felt need and consequent longing for divine righteous-
ness (cf. Matt. 6:10, third petition of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘““Thy will be done...”’).
According to Matt., those who hunger are the same as those who believe and long
for the kingdom of God (6:33). Their promised filling begins with the coming of
Jesus and continues until everything else is theirs as well.
(c) Hunger and thirst in the Johannine writings have a double meaning. Natural
thirst (Jn. 4:13) and physical hunger (6:1 ff.) convey the longing for life in general.
Jesus seizes upon this longing in order to show that it is only through contact with
himself, the life-giver, that it is satisfied (4:14 f.; 6:35, “I am the bread of life’;
alluding to Exod. 16:3 ff., 7:37). But what is promised in all the sayings about the
satisfaction of hunger and thirst is only fully received in God’s new world. Then
all the physical and spiritual needs of earth will be ended (Rev. 7:16; 21:6; 22:17
= Isa. 49:10; 55:1; cf. Lk. 1:53; 6:21 par. Matt. 5:6).
3. The description in the gospels of Jesus himself having to suffer hunger and
thirst serves to show the Son of God in his humanity. After 40 days of fasting
hunger became for Jesus a temptation from the devil to use his authority as Son
of God to satisfy his own need through a miracle (Matt. 4:2; Lk. 4:2; cf. Mk.
1:12 f.). Only in obedience to God’s word was he able to stand firm, for ‘““Man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of
God” (Matt. 4:4; cf. Lk. 4:4; Deut. 8:3). He cursed the fig-tree which did not
satisfy his hunger for fruit (Matt. 21:18 f. par. Mk. 11:12 ff.; — Fruit, art. syké)
and thereby demonstrated in parabolic fashion how a curse will fall upon all who
do not bear the fruit of —> righteousness. On the cross he thirsted though he offered
himself as the living water to satisfy all thirst (Jn. 19:28; cf. Ps. 69:21; — Gall).
4. For the sake of their calling the disciples shared Jesus’ poverty. Jesus defended
their action of plucking ears of corn on the — sabbath (Matt. 12:1-8 par. Mk.
2:23-28, Lk. 6:1—-5). Hunger and thirst were also among the deprivations that
Paul had to undergo for the crucified Christ, in contrast to the enthusiasts in
Corinth who fallaciously believed that they already enjoyed full possession of all
the good things of the coming world (1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Cor. 11:27). When they
assembled for worship, the latter pitilessly took no notice of the hungry among them
(1 Cor. 11:21, 34). Hunger and thirst are not necessarily signs of God’s disfavour.
They may afflict, but they cannot separate from the love of God (Rom. 8:35). If
Paul nevertheless was able to overcome them, he did so not on the basis of asceti-
cism or superior knowledge, but through Christ alone (Phil. 4:12).
5. Hunger and thirst are occasions for the exercise of love. Their satisfaction is
reckoned among the works of mercy which are set up as a standard at the judgment
267
HUNGER
of the world (Matt. 25:35, 37, 42) and which should include one’s enemy (Rom.
12:20 = Prov. 25:21 f.; —- Head). We have to remember also that in those who
hunger and thirst Jesus Christ himself meets us incognito (Matt. 25:37, 42),
“disguised in the uniform of misery’? (Matthias Claudius; cf. Acts 11:28 ff.).
W. Bauder
| Bpmua Bp Ope Grom) 1000s Bp Ooi, (Crass) ane consume
pop ing, food; Bpwaoiyoc (brésimos), eatable; yadda (gala),
milk.
CL broma (from Hippocrates on) and brosis (from Homer on) both mean: (a) what
is eaten, food; (b) eating (as a process); rarely, in the metaphorical sense, the
food of immortality.
oT In the LXX both words translate almost exclusively the Heb. word group
connected with the vb. ’dkal, to eat. They mostly mean food, and only rarely
eating as a process (e.g. Jer. 15:3). eis brosin is a frequent phrase meaning ‘‘for
food” (of men: Gen. 1:29; 2:9; 3:7; 9:3; etc.; of animals: Gen. 1:30; Jer. 7:33;
19:7; etc.).
God, who has assigned food to both men and beasts (Gen. 1:29 f.; 2:16; 9:3),
also looks after his people’s food throughout their history (cf. Ps. 78:18, 30; Gen.
41:35 ff.). The food, which God gives, is an expression of the righteousness which
he has also given (Jon. 2:23 LXX).
This group of concepts does not occur in the LXX in the metaphorical sense for
spiritual or supernatural food (nevertheless Deut. 8:3 points in this direction; >
Bread, art. manna).
NT broma occurs in the NT 17 times, of which 10 are in Paul: (a) in its literal sense,
food (e.g. Matt. 14:15; Mk. 7:19; Rom. 14:15, 20; 1 Cor. 8:8, 13); (b) in the
metaphorical sense (e.g. Jn. 4:34; 1 Cor. 3:2; 10:3). brdsis (11 times) is used (a)
for the act of eating (e.g. Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 8:4; 2 Cor. 9:10; Col. 2:16); (b) as
the synonym of bréma both literally (Heb. 12:16) and metaphorically (Jn. 4:32;
66:27, 55); (c) exceptionally of an insect that consumes (Matt. 6:19).
1. The literal use. In the NT, as in the OT, food is seen as God’s gift which should
be asked for daily (“give us this day our daily bread”; — Bread, art. epiousios)
and received thankfully (1 Tim. 4:4). Ascetic and ritual tendencies, which classed
certain foods as taboo, are rejected by the NT as false teaching (Col. 2:16 f.; 1 Tim.
4:3 ff.; Heb. 13:9; cf. Heb. 9:10). No food is unclean as such (Mk. 7:18 f.; cf.
Acts 10:14 f.), and no food therefore possesses any special significance for our
relationship to God (1 God. 8:8; cf. 1 Cor. 6:13). It is not the observance of par-
ticular commands or prohibitions concerning food which decides our participa-
tion in God’s salvation; the — kingdom of God is realized in righteousness and
peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17).
Christians can be commanded to avoid a particular food (meat offered to idols),
however, if a brother by eating will be plunged into a conflict of — conscience,
because his conscience is still prisoner of the idea that the use of this food is
something prohibited and offensive to God (Rom. 14:15, 20; 1 Cor. 8:13). Out of
268
HUNGER
love for the tempted brother for whom Christ died the Christian who 1s “strong”’
in — knowledge must be able to forego a particular food. The possibility of sinning,
however, does not lie in the food offered to the idol (1 Cor. 8:4) but in the man
himself (cf. 1 Cor. 10:27).
2. bréma is used figuratively in contrast to gala, milk, in 1 Cor. 3:2. True pro-
clamation of the word is always attuned to the receptivity of the hearer. But since
faith involves a process of maturing, the “babe”’ in the faith cannot yet “‘digest’’ the
deepest truths of divine wisdom. It is too strong meat for him.
The heavenly food mentioned in | Cor. 10:3 is the manna which in a miraculous
way kept the people of Israel alive when earthly food was lacking. This food
is interpreted typologically with reference to the Lord’s Supper (— art. pind NT
4 (a) below; — Bread, art. manna; — Lord’s Supper).
Food is also referred to metaphorically in Jn. 4:32. Jesus startlingly described
the work that he did in fulfilment of his — Father’s commission as the food (brosis;
v.l. broma) on which he lived. Jesus’ actions, indeed his whole life, constitute a
revelation which does not have its origin in himself but which he receives from his
Father. His work is none other than the living out of this revelation. Jesus’ descrip-
tion of his work (vv. 32, 34) as his food means that he has come “‘not only for this
service, but indeed through this service” (R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971,
195).
brodsis is mentioned three more times in Jn. in connection with feeding on Christ.
“Do not labour for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to
eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father
set his seal’’ (Jn. 6:27). ““For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”’
(Jn. 6:55). Christ himself is now the food. “‘Jesus gives the bread of life in that he is
the bread of life’ (R. Bultmann, op. cit., 227). The man Jesus becomes, as Christ,
“the bread which came down from heaven’”’ (Jn. 6:41). To eat this bread is another
way of describing what it is to believe in Jesus, “for he who comes to me shall not
hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst” (Jn. 6:35).
H. Kropatschek
| VEVOLLAL | yvevoulal (geuomai), taste, partake of, enjoy, experience.
CL & OT geuomai (root geus, gys; cf. Lat. gustare, Ger. kosten, to taste) means to
taste, and hence figuratively to partake of, enjoy, and experience. In the OT
the word occurs in the figurative sense only in Ps. 34:8 (““Taste and see that the
Lord is good”); Job 20:18; and Prov. 31:18. Otherwise it is always used literally
(cf. Gen. 25:30; 1 Sam. 14:24 ff.; Jon. 3:7). In the OT the figurative meaning
expresses the element of experience. It translates the Heb. ta‘am, taste, perceive.
NT In the NT geuomai occurs 15 times (of which 10 are in the Gospels and Acts)
and is used as in secular Gk. and in the LXX.
1. Taste is used in a literal sense in (e.g.) Matt. 27:34; Jn. 2:9; Acts 10:10; and
Col. 2:21. The Colossian church was distracted by a “‘philosophy”’ (Col. 2:8) which
‘““made use of terms which stemmed from Jewish tradition, but which had been
transformed in the crucible of syncretism to be subject to the service of ‘the
269
HUNGER
elements of the universe.’ It is this service which they are now supposed to express.
Since the angelic powers are in charge of the order of the cosmos and the course of
the stars, their sacred seasons and times must be observed and the regulations,
codified in a list of taboos, must be followed’ (E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon,
Hermeneia, 1971, 116). By setting apart areas of life as controlled by demonic
powers, this group at Colossae was in effect calling in question the victory of Christ
over the whole world. Col. counters this by asking: “If with Christ you died to the
elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the
world? Why do you submit to regulations? ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not
touch’ (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human
precepts and doctrines? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting
rigour of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no
value in checking the indulgence of the flesh’’ (Col. 2: 20-23).
The parable of the great banquet concludes with the pronouncement: “For I tell
you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet” (Lk. 14:24).
Here Jesus himself is speaking through the master in the parable pronouncing the
rejection of those who rejected the invitation to the messianic banquet on account
of worldly concerns. The literal sense of “‘taste’’ symbolizes participation in the —
kingdom of God.
2. The figurative sense. | Pet. 2:3 takes up the words of Ps. 34:8, when it says,
‘“‘For you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.’ The readers are urged to put away
malice, guile, insincerity and slander (2:1) and grow up in a way appropriate to those
who have been “born anew” (1:23). ““Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiri-
tual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation” (2:2; — Birth; —~ Conversion).
In view of the connection of the passage with Ps. 34, E. G. Selwyn suggests that its
force is best brought out if it is rendered: “if you have responded to the Psalmist’s
words, ‘taste and see that the Lord is good’, i.e. if you have taken the initial step
of adherence to Christ’ (The First Epistle of St. Peter, 1946, 157). The word “‘if
[ei]’’ is to be understood in the sense of “‘seeing that’? (RSV “‘for’’; cf. 1:17; Funk
§§ 371 f.). Selwyn also suggests that Ps. 34 lies behind the thought of 1 Pet. at
numerous points (cf. v. 10 with 1:15 ff.; v. 5 with 1:17 and 2:4; vv. 13-17 quoted
verbatim in 3:10 ff.; v. 23 with 1:18, 13; and v. 20 with the epistle passim). He
conjectures its use in the church of Asia Minor as part of a catechetical document,
a persecution document or a baptismal hymn.
Ps. 34:8 may also be reflected in Heb. 6:4 ff.: “For it is impossible to restore
again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the
heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the
goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then com-
mit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold
him up to contempt.” It is not clear whether the author is thinking specifically of
the forgiveness of sins, the gift of salvation, the Holy Spirit, or Christ himself.
I. H. Marshall thinks it unlikely that the Holy Spirit is meant in view of the follow-
ing reference to him, and that it is most probable that salvation is in mind (Kept
by the Power of God, 1969, 137). He suggests that the emphasis in tasting is not that
of taking a sip, as Calvin thought. (In Heb. 2:9 Christ tasted death in the sense
that he experienced its bitter taste to the full.) The amount consumed is not the
point, but the fact of experiencing what is eaten. The Christians to whom this is
270
HUNGER
addressed have already experienced something of the future age, the world that is
to come. If in this experience believers thus receive a foretaste, the passage is an
instance of the characteristic tension between the “‘already”’ and the “‘not yet” in
the life of the Christian.
On the expression “‘to taste death” (already present in ancient Jewish literature,
cf. SB I 751 ff. on Matt. 16:28) compare 1 Sam. 15:32; Sir. 41:1 (the bitterness of
death). The promise of Mk. 9:1 and Lk. 9:27 that some would see the coming of
the kingdom (or the Son of man coming in his kingdom, Matt. 16:28) without
tasting death, i.e. without dying, is to be explained by the expected nearness of the
event. It was an expectation which (Adolf Schlatter suggested) itself experienced
“by God’s ruling not only fulfilment but also expansion and modification.” ({Ed.]
However, the passage has also been understood to refer to the transfiguration which
in fact took place shortly after, the resurrection, and also to the coming of the Son
of man in judgment on Jerusalem [on Matt. 24:34 par. — Generation].)
The statement of Heb. 2:9 that Jesus “tasted death for every one”’ sees his death
as an act of salvation. His condemnation as a sinner does not spare man from
physical death, but takes away his fear of death, because through it death’s power
of eternal destruction was broken (cf. vv. 14f.). Similarly, Jn. 8:52 contains the
promise: “Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never taste
death.” E. Tiedtke
| éa0io | éabiw (esthio), eat.
cL Along with drinking, eating is necessary for the maintenance of physical life
(cf. Homer, Od., 2, 305; cf. Lk. 24:41). Eating is pleasant, but indulgence is a
vice (cf. Xen., Mem. 2, 1, 24 ff.: ““You should always be concerned about the plea-
sure you find in eating and drinking. .. . My friends, she said, call me Eudaimonia
[prosperity, good fortune, happiness, personified as a divinity], but those who hate
me... Kakia [badness, personified]’’). Those who seek their pleasure in eating
and drinking (cf. Xen., Mem. 2, 1, 9), should understand that the gods do not give
what is really good and beautiful without effort and diligence (Xen., Mem. 2, 1, 28:
“If you wish the earth to bear you a rich harvest, you must do the earth service’;
cf. Lk. 17:7 f.). Over and above the physical, men have sought to commune with
the deity through sacramental meals and foods, and so obtain a share in the divine
and immortal powers of life or even in the deity itself. The early Christian writer,
Ignatius of Antioch, spoke of “‘breaking one bread, which is the medicine of
immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus
Christ’? (Eph. 20). For this use of food in non-Christian religions see R. Bultmann,
The Gospel of John, 1971, 223 f. On the purely physical level the two extremes are
gluttony (cf. Homer, Od. 21, 69) and asceticism (cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11,
23).
oT All food in the OT is understood as the gift of God, whether it is the produce of
man or whether it grows naturally (Deut. 14:4). This places man under obli-
gation to God and under his direction (Gen. 3:2 f.). Thus, abstinence from or con-
sumption of certain foods (Lev. 7:23 ff.; cf. the fruit of “‘the tree of the knowledge
271
HUNGER
of good and evil’, Gen. 2:17) are tests of man’s obedience to God. Disobedience
(Gen. 3:6) can bring punishment (Gen. 3:17). But in general, the satisfaction of
man’s need of food is traced to God (Ps. 22:26); not having enough to eat or
being unable to eat (Ps. 102:4, 9 f.; cf. Acts 9:9) is seen as a sign of God’s anger
and punishment (cf. Hos. 4:10). The righteous and the devout do not need to
worry about their food (Ps. 127:2; Isa. 3:10; cf. Matt. 6:25), for their relationship
with God is in order (Eccl. 9:7). After the meal God should be praised (Deut.
8:10), and not forgotten (Deut. 6:11 f.). Since eating is not something the man
should do in isolation but is an expression of relationship with God, one must
share one’s bread with the hungry (Isa. 58:7; cf. Lk. 16:19 f.). One can eat and
drink to God’s glory (Exod. 24:11; cf. 1 Cor. 10:31) and make ritual sacrifices of
food to him (Lev. 2:3, 6, 9 ff.). In later apocalyptic thought one can eat and drink
with God and so be in fellowship with him (cf. Joseph and Aseneth 8:5; 15:4). At
the consummation of time those who have been hungry will eat their fill, and manna
in abundance will once again fall from above (Syr.Bar. 29:6 ff.). On vegetarian
asceticism see Test.Jud. 15:4, where Judah is said not to have tasted wine or meat
even in his old age (cf. Rom. 14:21). Isa. 22:13 describes the irresponsible be-
haviour of those who care for nothing but eating and drinking (cf. Matt. 24:38;
Lk. 12:19; 1 Cor. 15:32; Livy 26, 13; Hdt. 2, 193; Diod.Sic. 2, 23; The Gilgamesh
Epic, ANET, 90; the Egyptian proverb, ANET, 415; A Song of the Harper, ANET,
467; see E. J. Young, A Commentary on Isaiah, I, 1969, 103).
NT |. The various traditions about John the Baptist (Mk. 2:18; Matt. 11:18;
Mk. 1:6) recount that he fasted and lived abstemiously. Despite Matt. 11:19,
it is no longer possible to determine whether the historical Jesus in fact differed
from the Baptist on this point, even though the gospels recount how Jesus culti-
vated table fellowship with others as well as with his disciples (Mk. 14:18). This is
seen as an expression of fellowship (Lk. 13:26), and in Luke’s theology as an
expression of genuine eye-witness testimony (Acts 10:41). He ate with the Phari-
sees (Lk. 7:36) and with sinners (Mk. 2:16).
The mode of life of the primitive Christian church, however, was by no means
ascetic (Mk. 2:19). A feature was the joyful common meals (Acts 2:46; cf. Lk.
15:23; but cf. also 1 Cor. 11:20 ff.). Ritual prohibitions were rejected (Gal. 2:12;
Mk. 7:1 ff.). The mistaken conclusion that table fellowship with Jesus guaranteed
acceptance in the kingdom of God is countered in Lk. 13:26 ff.; cf. Matt. 7:21 ff. ;
25:41; Lk. 6:46. The complaint that Jesus was eating with tax collectors and
sinners is met in Mk. 2:16f. by the statement that Jesus had not come to call the
righteous, but sinners (see below under pind, 3 (a)). Table fellowship symbolizes
fellowship in general. Even Luke’s account of the distant parousia retains the
significance of table fellowship in the kingdom of God (Lk. 14:15; 22:30). The
stories of the feedings in Mk. 6:34 ff. and 8:1 ff. are part of the — miracle stories
which glorify Jesus’ power and greatness (par. Matt. 14:13-21, Lk. 9:10-17, Jn.
6:1-13, and Matt. 15:32-39),
2. Eating is discussed in the context of mission in so far as the missionary 1s
entitled to support (1 Cor. 9:14; Matt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7). The command to work
belongs among the exhortations to the church; for whoever will not work should
not eat (2 Thess. 3:10).
212
HUNGER
3. Eating and drinking became a particular problem in Corinth. Certain groups
there sought to prove their “‘strength” and ‘‘freedom”’ by deliberate participation
in sacrifices to idols (1 Cor. 10:14 ff.). Paul had to point out to them that one can
have communion either with God or with idols and demons, but not with both.
They are mutually exclusive (1 Cor. 10:20 ff.). There was also the further question
whether it was permissible to buy and eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols
and was now offered for sale in the market. Paul answered this question in the
affirmative (v. 25), but with the proviso that one has to take into account the “‘weak”’
(1 Cor. 8:9 ff.; 10:32; cf. Rom. 14 f.). Even the — Lord’s Supper gave rise to a
crisis in Corinth. For in the absence of the apostle certain irregularities, the precise
nature of which are no longer clearly recognizable, endangered the common meal.
W. Schmithals suggests that there was an attempt to replace by a secular meal the
sacramental meal that had been handed down to them, since a meal which had the
Crucified One as its content was considered shocking and, in the light of their
new-found strength, nonsense (Gnosticism in Corinth, 1971). This resulted in Paul
reasserting the death of the Lord in the centre of the feast (1 Cor. 11:26). G. Born-
kamm suggests that the Corinthians in no sense wanted to do away with the Lord’s
Supper, but on the contrary saw it as so highly important that the preceding meal
became a matter which one could conduct according to one’s own pleasure and for
one’s own enjoyment (Early Christian Experience, 1969, 146 ff.). The abuses in
Corinth may also be interpreted as a failure of the church to understand itself at
the Lord’s Supper as the — body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15; 10:16; 11:29; 12:27),
because the meal was being profaned as in the description in | Cor. 11:21 (cf. 1
Cor. 5:11). In practice it was threatened with replacement by a straightforward
meal to satisfy hunger. The expression to idion deipnon, “‘his own meal’’, denotes a
meal utterly separated from Christ —not only from the crucified Christ (cf. to
idion soma, ““his own body’”’ [1 Cor. 6:18; 7:4]). Perhaps idion, own, belonging to
the individual, for oneself, belonged to the Corinthians’ terminology and referred
to the falsely understood strength and freedom (cf. 1 Cor. 7:7). At all events it 1s
not, as is frequently assumed, a question of a private meal of individuals which Paul
contrasted with the common celebration of the Lord’s Supper, in which all the
members of the church, both rich and poor, ought to take part.
4. (a) Another question is raised by Jn. The true — bread (Jn. 6:32) is Jesus
himself (vv. 35, 48). Coming to him, i.e. faith in him, ensures eternal life (v. 27),
whereas ordinary food has no lasting effect (vv. 49 f.). Verses 51 ff. go beyond what
has been said before in that they further define eating, which previously meant faith
as eating Jesus’ sarx, flesh (— the Lord’s Supper).
(b) The eating of the Book of the Revelation (Rev. 10:9; cf. Ezek. 3:1 ff.) means
the real appropriation of the revelation, the content of which (cf. ch. 12 ff.) is
described as ‘“‘sweet”’ (denoting victory) and “bitter” (symbolizing struggle).
(c) In Heb. 13:10 it is not clear whether the altar refers to the Lord’s Supper,
Jesus’ cross, an unrealistic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (cf. O. Michel, Der Brief
an die Hebrder, KEK 13, 19661%), or simply means that every non-Christian sacri-
ficial meal is to be rejected. F. F. Bruce suggests that “‘altar’’ here means “‘sacrifice’’.
It is a case of metonymy, as when we say that someone keeps a “good table’’,
meaning thereby ‘“‘good food” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1964, 399 f.).
G. Braumann
273
HUNGER
| 3 tive (pind), drink; zoti¢@ (potizd), water, give to drink;
TIVO | ; ne ; ;
OTH plov (potérion), cup; m0Lua (poma), a drink; zoaic
(posis), drinking, a drink; z0t0¢ (potos), drinking, i.e. revelry.
CL 1. pind (Homer onwards) means to drink; the compound katapin6d (Hesiod,
Hdt. on) strengthens the meaning of the simple vb.: to drink up, swallow (e.g.
of the earth soaking up water, Plato, Crit. 111 D). The related vb. potizod (Hippo-
crates on) has the trans. meaning: to enable someone to drink; to allow to drink,
to give to drink, to water (of animals). The noun hé posis (Homer on) denotes (a) the
act of drinking (Hdt. 1, 172); (b) what is drunk, the drink (Jn. 6:55). to poma
(Pindar) and to poton (Homer on, not in the NT) have the same meaning, drink,
while ho potos (Xenophon) means drinking together, revelry (in the NT only | Pet.
4:3). poterion (Alcaeus, Sappho on), finally, is the drinking vessel, the cup or goblet,
and plays an important role in the NT texts on the Lord’s Supper.
2. Drinking satisfies thirst and refreshes (Nestor to Machaon after they have
survived a battle: ‘““Now drink...’ [Homer, J/. 14, 5]). In popular opinion it was
considered a pleasure (but he asked him whether he knew the good in order to
show him, should he say something about these, that is food and drink, that they
can sometimes be evil [Xen., Mem. 3, 8, 2]). It can become a passion (Ought one
not first to investigate who controls gluttony and the desire for drink? [Xen., Mem.
3, 6, 1]). In philosophical discussions a similar view of life runs up against criticism
(Will not those who have given themselves up to gluttony and the desire for drink
probably enter the species of the ass and similar beasts? [Plato, Phd. 81, 2]). But
the Greeks were not only familiar with drinking as a means of satisfying a physical
thirst or providing a physical pleasure. Over and above this, it had a special place
in the mystery religions especially in sacral meals (cf. TDNT VI 137 f.). Drinking,
above all of water, supplies real, supernatural powers and life-giving knowledge
(Eth.Enoch. 22:9; Od.Sol. 6:18: for all recognized one another in the Lord and
were redeemed through the eternal immortal water; Corp. Herm. 1, 29: and they
were fed from the immortal water). kai doié soi ho Osiris to psychron hydor, “‘and
may Osiris give you the cold water” is a wish often repeated on funerary inscrip-
tions (see E. Rohde, Psyche, [1907] II, 391; cf. also R. Bultmann, The Gospel of
John, 1971, 178-87, 302-6; Arndt, 664).
oT In the vast majority of cases (215 times) the LXX translates the qal of Satah, to
drink, by pind, while potizd renders the hiph. of Saqah, to give to drink, water.
1. In view of frequently occurring shortages of — water, thirst (Exod. 17:1 ff.
—> art. peinad) and drinking (1 Ki. 17:3 f.) are of particular significance in the OT
world. The Lord proclaimed his sovereignty and mystery in asking Job: ““Who has
cleft a channel for the torrents of rain, and a way for the thunderbolt, to bring rain
on a land where no man is, on the desert in which there is no man; to satisfy the
waste and desolate land, and to make the ground put forth grass?’’ (Job 38:25 ff.).
Rain transforms eastern lands into a “‘watered garden” (cf. Isa. 55:10), while the
lack of it causes almost all vegetation to wither and results in catastrophic famines
(1 Ki. 18:2 ff.). Closely connected with the shortage of water is the presence of bad
and undrinkable water (Exod. 15:23).
2. The ability to satisfy thirst is attributed to God. ‘““Thou visitest the earth and
waterest it, thou greatly enrichest it; the river of God is full of water; thou providést
274
HUNGER
their grain, for so thou has prepared it’’ (Ps. 65:9). Drink was not understood as a
— gift of creation put at man’s disposal once and for all at the creation, but as a
gift which is continually received anew from God and is the cause of thanks-
giving (Exod. 15:22 ff.; Jdg. 15:18). Correspondingly, thirst which cannot be
quenched was understood as God’s anger and punishment (Isa. 5:13). When the
quenching of thirst is taken for granted, God has been forgotten (Jer. 2:6). In
responsibility to him Israel had to handle water carefully (Ezek. 34:18 ff.), and not
only because it was felt to be a particular blessing of the cultivated land.
3. Used figuratively, drinking can stand for the way God’s gifts and judgments
come to men. According to whether it is the cup of his wrath (cf. Jer. 25:15 ff.;
Isa. 51:17; Ps. 60:3; 75:8) or his gracious gift (Ps. 116:13; cf. also Isa. 55:1), the
drink leads to destruction or to salvation. Equally figuratively, Amos 8:11 speaks
of thirst for the word of God which can be quenched only if God wills.
NT The NT speaks of drinking and eating in a variety of connections. Five groups
of ideas can be distinguished: 1. practical piety; 2. the attitude of John the
Baptist and Jesus; 3. table fellowship; 4. the Lord’s Supper; 5. the Johannine water
of life.
1. (a) Like eating, drinking is referred to literally. The interesting thing about the
use of the word to drink is the way the relationship between a man and his neigh-
bour and a man and God is presented. Eating and drinking, like dress, are relativ-
ized (Matt. 6:25 ff., 31 par. Lk. 12:29); life itself is more important. God can
be relied on to take care of these matters. Seeking the kingdom of God and his
righteousness (Matt. 6:33; cf. Lk. 12:31) should hold a man’s interest, and then
these questions of daily living, to which eating and drinking belong, settle them-
selves. There is no eschatological element here, and the argument remains on the
level of popular wisdom (cf. SB I 436). One can rest all one’s cares on God.
(b) Observance of the distinction between clean and unclean foods belongs to
the old — covenant (Acts 10:14; — Animal; — Bird). Peter’s vision in which this
distinction was abolished symbolizes the abolition of Jewish exclusiveness and the
inclusion of the Gentiles in the — people of God.
(c) The materialistic attitude is rejected which looks no further than this life
(1 Cor. 15:32; cf. Lk. 12:19; — esthid oT). Those who are given to eating and
drinking and fail to recognize this situation and responsibility towards God (Matt.
24:48 ff.; Lk. 12:19), will nevertheless be called to account (Matt. 24:38 ff.; cf.
Lk. 17:27 ff.).
2. (a) This underlines the fact that eating and drinking are not to be seen as ends
in themselves, or as pleasures for the self-indulgent, but in the light of responsibility
to God and men. Paul saw the problem in terms of the church. Although the
Christian has complete freedom to eat and drink what he likes (1 Cor. 9:4), he is
bound to take account of his neighbour (Rom. 14:21). The question is seen
christologically in Matt.: in the poor to whom a drink is given (potizd) Christ
himself is encountered (Matt. 25:37, 42). Lk. 10:7 gives a practical directive for
mission.
(b) The problem is understood eschatologically by John the Baptist. The serious-
ness of imminent events cast its shadow over the present age (Mk. 1:5 f.). Therefore
21D
HUNGER
John neither ate nor drank (Matt. 11:18 f. par. Lk. 7:34; on John see C. H. H.
Scobie, John the Baptist, 1964).
(c) The behaviour of the “Son of man” is depicted as a direct contrast to this for
he both ate and drank (ibid.). A number of stories refer to the eating and drinking
of Jesus and the disciples. Jesus also ate and drank with sinners (Mk. 2:16; cf.
Lk. 5:30, 33). A clear eschatological motivation is lacking ({Ed.] unless we see in
Jesus’ actions his reinterpretation of the messianic banquet). Perhaps Jesus, in
contrast to John the Baptist, waited for the imminent events with joy rather than
with pessimistic seriousness and for this reason put himself on the side of the
sinners.
3. (a) Drinking takes on a deeper significance when, along with eating, it expresses
the unity which exists among those who share in a meal. Thus there will be those
who will call upon the fact that they have eaten and drunk with Jesus in order to
claim a place at his side in eternity (Lk. 13:26). But Jesus will reply that he never
knew them (v. 27; cf. Matt. 7:21 ff.; 25:41; Lk. 6:46). For the relationship was
merely formal. On the other hand, the disciples are promised that they will eat and
drink at Jesus’ table (Lk. 22:30). This deeper meaning also lies behind Lk. 5:30:
by eating with sinners the disciples, like Jesus, stand on their side. Lk. brings an
important qualification by inserting the words ‘“‘to repentance” (Lk. 5:32; cf.
Mk. 2:16 f.). Jesus did not come “‘to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
(b) The request of the sons of Zebedee to sit at Jesus’ side in eternity has an
apocalyptic-eschatological character (Matt. 20:20; Mk. 10:35-37; cf. Lk. 22:24 ff.),
but it is striking that Jesus’ answer is in no way apocalyptic or eschatological. It
points rather to his death: the cup is understood as the cup of suffering, the —
baptism as the baptism of death (Matt. 20:22; Mk. 10:38). The “‘cup”’ of suffering
is mentioned again in Matt. 26:39; Mk. 14:36; Lk. 22:42; cf. Jn. 18:11. Jesus
requested his Father to let the cup of suffering (potérion) pass from him. In the OT
the cup is a symbol of judgment and retribution (cf. Ps. 75:9; Isa. 51:17 f.; Jer.
25:15 ff.).
4. (a) Drinking is referred to figuratively in 1 Cor. 10:4 (cf. Exod. 17:6; Num.
20:11). Some think that Paul may be alluding in v. 3 f. to the —> Lord’s Supper as a
saving event which is already anticipated pneumatically in the time of Moses (cf.
the twice used word pneumatikos in v. 4 [lit. ‘spiritual’, “‘pertaining to the spirit”’;
—> Spirit]). Thus the allusion would be not figurative or parabolic but real and actual.
This means therefore that there is a real identity between the ancient and the new
saving events and not merely an analogy (E. Kasemann, ““The Pauline View of the
Lord’s Supper’, in Essays on New Testament Themes, 1964, 113 f.; but cf. R.
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 36). However it is not certain how
this drinking from Christ is to be understood. W. Heitmiiller saw in it an affinity
with the mystery cults: ““The food and drink are Jesus Christ” (RGG* I, 40). H. von
Soden understood it as the drink which comes from Christ as its source, that is, the
drink that Christ gives: “Christ gives the drink, not Christ is the drink”’ (Sakrament
und Ethik bei Paulus, 1931, 264).
({[Ed.] This division of opinion is reflected among English-speaking scholars. E. E.
Ellis writes: “The Old Covenant like the New, had a food and drink in which Christ
was [typically] present”’ [Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 1957, 131]. He takes pneu-
matikos inv. 4 to mean “‘in its typical or prophetic significance’’, and links this up
276
HUNGER
99 666
with the use of typoi, v. 6 [“‘examples’’, “‘types’’] and typikos, v. 11 [“‘typologically’’,
“as an example or warning’’, Arndt, 837; — Image, art. typos]. But A. T. and R. P.
C. Hanson both reject the idea of typology in the sense of a similar situation pre-
figuring Christ in some kind of allegorical way, and say that the rock really was
Christ present with his people [A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament,
1965, 21; R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event, 1959, 79 f.].)
(b) The same uncertainty occurs with respect to 1 Cor. 10:16f. V. 16 is no doubt
a tradition taken over by Paul (Kasemann, op. cit., 109 ff.), which explained the
cup (potérion) as a sharing (not fellowship) in the body and blood of Christ. V. 17
is no doubt an expansion of the tradition by Paul. While Kasemann claims that,
‘In Christ one is at the same time the body of Christ” (Leib und Leib Christi, 1933,
168), H. Schlier maintains that “‘Paul is only saying that this body of the church
belongs to Christ, is his possession” (Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 1930,
41).
(c) The same question arises in the words which interpret the Lord’s Supper
tradition in Paul’s account (1 Cor. 11:23—26). Is the eating and drinking of bread
and wine identical with sharing in the exalted Christ or only a pointer to the earthly
Christ, in so far as his death is the ground of our salvation?
The synoptics connect the Lord’s Supper with the Passover meal (Matt. 26:17;
Mk. 14:12; Lk. 22:7, 15). This raises the critical question of the original meaning
of the Lord’s Supper. Is it to be understood against a Hellenistic background and
therefore not as a means of realizing the presence of Jesus, instituted by Jesus
himself? Or is it to be understood as an interpretation of the death of Jesus in its
significance for the salvation of the church? — Lord’s Supper; — Feast, art.
pascha.
5. Jn. 4:10 ff. raises the question of the — water of life (v. 11). Ordinary water
quenches the thirst only for the time being (v. 13). (The kingdom of God and
eating and drinking are two different things [Rom. 14:17; cf. Col. 2:16].) But the
water which Jesus gives bestows eternal life (v. 14). One must therefore come to
Jesus (Jn. 7:37; cf. Isa. 55:1), i.e. have faith in him (on the imperative form cf. R.
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, 1955, 23). While the gift here is
Jesus himself (cf. also Jn. 6:51 ff.), in Jn. 7:36 it is related to the Spirit as the Spirit
of Christ. G. Braumann
—> Bread, — Fast, — Feast, - Lord’s Supper, — Wine
(a). J. Behm, broma, TDNT I 642-45; geuomai, TDNT I 675 ff.; esthid, TDNT II 689-95; J.
Behm and G. Bertram, dipsao etc., TDNT II 226-29; A. C. Bouquet, Everyday Life in New Testa-
ment Times, 1954, 69-79; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971; L. Goppelt, peinad, TDNT VI
12-22; and pind, TDNT VI 135-60; D. R. Hall, ““St. Paul and Famine Relief: A Study in Galatians
2:10”, ExpT 82, 1970-71, 309 ff.; E. W. Heaton, Every Day Life in Old Testament Times, 1956, 81-
115; N. Hillyer, ‘‘ ‘Spiritual Milk ... Spiritual House’ ’’, 7B 20, 1969, 126; J. C. Hurd, Jr., The
Origin of 1 Corinthians, 1965; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 19667; J. P. Lewis,
‘“Food”’, ZPEB II 581-87; J. F. Ross, ‘‘Food’’, (DB II 304-8; and “Drink’’, /DB I 871 f.; H.
Schlier, gala, TDNT I 645 ff.; W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, 1971.
(b). E. Bammel and F. Schmidt-Clausing, “Fasten”, RGG? II 881 ff.; O. Bocher, “‘Ass Johannes
der Taufer kein Brot (Luk. vii. 33)?”, NTS 18, 1971-72, 90 ff.; W. Nauck, “‘Speisevorschriften’’,
EKL III 1080 f.; E. Siglmayr and R. Rendtorff, ‘““Speiseverbote’’, RGG? VI 230 ff.; G. Strecker,
Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 1962.
277]
I Am
| pc elt | byeb slut (ego eimi), | am; éycb (eg0), I.
CL The ego eimi formula does not occur in classical literature, and there are scarcely
any relevant parallels in later periods. But the wider context, particularly of
the Near East, demands special attention, not because of any direct influence on the
NT, but because of similarities of content and form. An emphatic “I’’-style can
be demonstrated in ancient India: I was Manu and I Surya, I am Kaksivat...I
compel Kutsa, the son of Arjuna; I am Kavi Usanas, look at me! (cf. E. Schweizer,
Ego eimi, 19652, 16). The Mandaean analogies are particularly interesting: I am the
life, that was from of old... Iam the glory, I am the light (Ginza 207, 34 ff.); Iam
the first glory (Ginza 592, 26; cf. Schweizer, op. cit., 37, and C. K. Barrett, The
Gospel According to St. John, 1955, 242). However, the history of the traditions in
the Mandaean texts is disputed and Christian influence cannot be excluded.
Probably the “‘I-am’’ sayings belong to the older strata and not to later interpreta-
tion. In terms of content, some scholars hold that the “‘I-am”’ statements are not
intended to be mere metaphors: vine, light and water are not iniages or figures of
speech, but actual substances understood mythologically (cf. Schweizer, op. cit.,
12 ff.).
OT 1. In the OT the Heb. words for “I’’, “nf and ’Gnoki, are very common. But
statistics are of little consequence in the LXX, since it translates the Heb.
equivalents mechanically by egd, “regardless of whether it is emphatic or un-
emphatic, necessary or superfluous in Greek, or used of God or men’’ (Schweizer,
op. cit., 23). As a result, egd eimi in the LXX is not an exclusively religious
formula.
2. Nevertheless, certain “I’’-formulae are noteworthy. The so-called self-
presentations are important in this connection, in which Yahweh makes himself
known as the promised saving God of the fathers (Gen. 15:7; 17:1; 28:13; 35:11;
cf. also the opening of the Decalogue, “I am the Lord your God, who .. .”’ [Exod.
20:2]; and eg6é eimi ho 6n “I am the existing One’”’ [Exod. 3:14 LXX)]). This self-
presentation was necessary in the polytheistic world of the ancient orient; it sought
to secure the trust of the recipient of the revelation in this one God alone. In terms
of content, God is the one who acts in history. In the passages in Ezek. where God is
speaking the Heb. phrase recurs: **ni YHWH (“I [am] Yahweh’’; cf. Ezek. 33:29;
36:36; 37:6, 13; 39:28). In Deut. God’s action in history is demonstrated in the
dialectic of judgment and salvation, and on this basis obedience and honour. are
278
I Am
due to God as the only God (Deut. 32:39 ff.). According to D. Daube, the expres-
sion “ni hi’ (“I [am] he”’; cf. Deut. 32:39; Isa. 40:10, 13 etc.) “can hardly signify
‘I am this or that’, referring back to some previous attribute. In the Old Testament
it appears in the sense of ‘I am the Absolute’ or the like, and this application cer-
tainly prepared the ground for the ego eimi of the Messianic Presence” (The New
Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956, 327). The most universal and clearest
expression of this power of Yahweh over nature and history is to be found in the
passages in Isa., where Yahweh declares: “I am the Lord, who made all things, who
stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth’’ (44:24); “I am the first
and the last; besides me there is no god” (44:6; cf. 43:11; 45:5, 22). A similar
““T’’-~style, when God is speaking, occurs in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic litera-
ture (Eth.Enoch 108:12; Apoc.Abr. 9:3; Jub. 24:22).
3. egd, uttered by men, occurs in the first-person speeches of the prophets (e.g.
in the Servant Songs, Isa. 48:12; 49:1 ff.; cf. 50:4 ff.; 61:1) and in the wisdom
literature (Prov. 8). Later the apocalyptic writers were fond of using the “‘I’’-style,
and frequently did so to convey secret revelations (cf. Dan. 7:15, 28; Sl.Enoch
39:2). The Damascus Rule from Qumran also speaks in the style of wisdom: “‘Hear
now, my sons, and I will uncover your eyes that you may see and understand the
works of God” (CD 2:14).
NT In the NT ego and ego eimi differ in significance in Jn., the synoptic tradition,
Rev. and Paul.
1. The “Iam” Sayings in Jn. ego eimi occurs as a fixed formula in the pronounce-
ments in Jn. These “I am” sayings are to be distinguished from those in which
Jesus uses the emphatic “‘I”’ (cf. Jn. 7:29; 9:39).
(a) The Johannine usage is typified by its formal structure: first there is the “I
am’’ which is followed by a visual picture which can be further qualified by an adj.
or a participle. The sentence structure raises the question whether the “‘T’’ is the
subject or the predicate. If the “‘I’’ is the subject, we have to ask what it is that the
predicate answers. R. Bultmann distinguishes the following types of “‘I am”
pronouncements (The Gospel of John, 1971, 225 f.). (i) The presentation formula
replies to the question, ““Who are you?” (cf. Gen. 17:1; Aristophanes, Plutus 78:
“Tt am in fact Plutus’’). (ii) The qualificatory formula answers the question, ‘““What
are you?’’ (cf. Epictetus, Dissertationes 4, 8, 15 f.; Ezek. 28:2, 9). The reply to such
a question is “J am such and such...” or “I am the sort of man who... .”’ (iii) In
the identification formula the speaker identifies himself with another person, power
or object. Thus the Egyptian god Ré identifies himself with Chepre: “‘J am he who
arose as Chepre”’ (Al/torientalische Texte, 1; cf. Jn. 11:25; 14:6). (iv) The recognition
formula differs from the others in that the “I” is the predicate. It answers the
question, ““Who is so and so?” with the answer “I am’’. Bultmann submits that
“In the egd-eimi statements Jn. 6:35, 41, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 15:1, 5 we
clearly have recognition formulae, even if in the source they were perhaps intended
as presentation or qualificatory formulae” (op. cit., 226).
(b) A further question is the meaning of the visual picture in the pronouncement.
One view is that we are dealing with similes, parables, metaphors or allegories,
when Jesus says, ““I am the bread of life’; “‘I am the light of the world’’; “‘I am the
good shepherd” etc. Thus Jesus is compared with a shepherd and his followers with
279
I AM
sheep. Another view is that Jesus is in reality the embodiment of the shepherd and
his followers the sheep (cf. the Johannine aléthinos, true, genuine, real, in Jn. 1:9;
4:23, 37; 6:32; 7:28; 8:16; 15:1; 17:3; 19:35; 1 Jn. 2:8; 5:20). Some exegetes
favour this interpretation on the grounds of the religious background material
(see above CL), context and detailed exegesis, although parabolic and allegorical
elements cannot be excluded. Thus, Jesus would not only be compared with a
shepherd; he is the shepherd in the fullest sense of the term. He is not only com-
pared with a vine. The vine cannot show who and what Jesus is; rather the true
vine is Jesus and no other (Jn. 15:1). Jesus is not only like a door. He is the door;
this reality, this divine truth, applies to no one but him.
(c) This interpretation suggests a polemical situation which prompts the question:
Against whom are these pronouncements directed? Some scholars think that the
Johannine pronouncements arose out of a situation in which various people other
than Jesus were designated as the vine, the shepherd etc. These have been identified
with gnostic redeemer figures (cf. R. Bultmann, op. cit., 367-70 on the shepherd,
and 530 ff. on the vine which he identifies with the mythical tree of life). Thus the
Johannine pronouncements would repudiate their claims and declare that the —
bread of life, the — light of the world, the door — (Gate), the — shepherd etc. are
Jesus alone. ([Ed.] However, the idea of a gnostic background for these pronounce-
ments has been rejected by numerous authorities on Johannine thought. Thus,
B. Lindars maintains that the categories of thought in Jn. 15 are moral and not
gnostic [The Gospel of John, 1972, 487]. R. E. Brown holds that the OT and Judaism
supplied the raw material for the teaching about the door, the shepherd and the
vine [The Gospel According to John, I, 1966, 397 f.; II, 1971, 669-72]. See also L.
Morris, The Gospel According to John, 1972, ad loc.; and R. Schnackenburg, The
Gospel According to St. John, I, 1968, 543-57, Excursus VI on ‘‘The Gnostic Myth
of the Redeemer and the Johannine Christology’’.)
(d) The sources and traditions behind the “I am”’ sayings are disputed, and can
be further determined only by closer exegesis of the individual passages. For further
discussion see C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953; and
Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 1963; the works listed above and the
numerous journal articles that they refer to.
(e) Jesus is the — bread of life, in that he is what he gives (Jn. 6:35, 41, 48, 51).
This bread of life, 1.e. Jesus himself, provides eternal — life (6:47). It comes from —
heaven (v. 51), and access to it is through — faith (v. 47). Jesus is the — light of the
world (— Earth, art. kosmos), and in following him one has the light of life (the
light is defined by means of the gen., Jn. 8:12). The bread of life is identical with
the light of life. In contrast to all others Jesus is the door (— Gate, art. thyra); for
Jesus gives access to salvation (10:7, 9). The saying about the ‘“‘good’’ — shepherd
has the same meaning: this real, unique shepherd is Jesus who gives his life for the
sheep (— Lamb, Sheep) and saves them (10:11). He knows his sheep and they
know him. This is not in the weakened sense of being aware of, or having a theo-
retical knowledge of, but in the sense of being intimately related to (vv. 8, 14).
Anyone who has questions about the — resurrection should turn to Jesus. For
there is no resurrection outside his person; it is personified in him (11:25). Anyone
who asks where, what or who is the way, the truth and the life will not only find
an explanation in Jesus’ teaching; Jesus himself is that which these terms refer to
280
I AM
(14:6). Jesus is the true, heavenly vine; between him and ourselves there exists a
real union (15:1, 5).
(f) In the judgment of the present writer, the “I am” sayings are not to be
regarded as parabolic pictures designed to illustrate the significance of Jesus, so
that one could grasp the intended reality on the basis of the picture. It is rather the
reverse. It is Jesus himself who determines the meaning of the picture.
G. Braumann
2. egd and ego eimi in the Remaining NT Writings. (a) The Synoptic Gospels. (1) The
account of Jesus’ walking on the water (Matt. 14:22-23; Mk. 6:45-52; cf. Jn.
6:15-21) suggests a theophany containing OT and Hel. motifs. The phrase ‘‘and he
meant to pass by them” (Mk. 6:48c) is reminiscent of Yahweh’s passing before
Moses on Sinai (Exod. 33:18 ff.) or before Elijah on Horeb (1 Ki. 19:11 ff.). It
expresses the “‘strange sublimity” of God’s appearance (E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangel-
ium des Markus, KEK 1/2, 19671", ad loc.). Meanwhile the disciples in the boat are
in a state of panic-stricken fear and think that the suddenly appearing figure is
a ghost (Mk. 6:49), a frequent motif in Hel. stories of the sea. Mk. impressively
contrasts the disciples’ opinion, “‘It is a ghost’, with Jesus’ revealing reply, ‘““Take
heart, it is I [ego eimi]; have no fear’ (Mk. 6:50). Only this self-revelation of Jesus
convinces them of the reality of the appearance; the unrecognized figure makes
himself known as the disciples’ trusted helper and master (cf. Lohmeyer, ad loc.).
(ii) Each of the six antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:21-48)
distinguishes Jesus’ message from what was said to the men of old by the provoca-
tive formula egé de legd hymin, “‘but I say to you.” This formula, which has no
parallel in Rab. teaching (G. Eichholz, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, BSt 46, 1965,
70), is not intended to replace OT law by a new law. Rather the “I say to you”’
marks Jesus as the lawful and true expositor of the Torah. In contrast to the scribes
with their abbreviations and casuistic distortions, Jesus goes back to the original
meaning of the Torah, to the will of God. By so doing he brings the Torah’s
demands to bear once more (cf. G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 1962,
146). The egé de lego hymin is directed in the name of God against contemporary
Judaism’s misrepresentations of his will. To this extent Matt. understands the
antitheses not as a contradiction but as the fulfilment of the original intention of
the Torah (Matt. 5:17).
(iii) Similarly, the emphatic egd of Jesus in his appeal to the weary and burdened
to come to him (Matt. 11:28-30) is directed against the unlawful claims of the
rabbinic teachers of the law who burdened men with their innumerable prohibi-
tions. Jesus calls those who labour under the burden of the Pharisaic law to come
under his “‘yoke’’ which offers rest and refreshment. “Because Christ’s law, in
contrast to the rules of the Pharisees, leads to rest, it can be called chréstos, good,
useful, although according to its content it is harder; and in so far as Jesus’ load
already gives anapausis, rest, it can be called light, although its demands are
weightier”’ (G. Strecker, op. cit., 174; cf. M. Maher, “‘ “Take my yoke upon you’
(Matt. xi. 29)”, NTS 22, 1975-76, 97-103; —> Burden).
(iv) In the synoptic apocalypse Jesus warns against people who will arise in his
name and lead many astray by the use of the words ego eimi (Matt. 24:5; Mk.
13:6; Lk. 21:8), the “technical formula for the self-revelation of Christ’? (TDNT
281
I AM
II 353). Here the early Christian church separated itself from those who unlawfully
and for dishonest ends claimed the authority of Jesus. On the other hand, at his
examination before the Sanhedrin, Jesus answered the High Priest’s question, “‘Are
you the Christ?’ with the words ego eimi (Mk. 14:61 f.). In the early Christian
church there was clearly discussion about the identity of the messiah (cf. Jn. 1:20)
and Jesus. Jesus answered the question about his messiahship in the affirmative
and, according to Mk.’s account (14:64), was promptly condemned to death for
blasphemy by the Jewish authorities. (See further D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of
Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present
Day, 1971.)
(v) Finally, the risen Christ led his disciples to recognize his identity with the
crucified Jesus through the use of the eg6é eimi formula (Lk. 24:39). Seeing his
hands and feet and touching him was proof of the reality of the resurrection which
overcame the disciples’ doubts (vv. 38, 41). In the closing scene of Matt. (28 :16—20)
the risen Christ announced the power he had received from God (“‘All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me’’, v. 18) and, by means of the ‘‘I-am”’’
formula, promised his presence with the disciples until the end of the age.
(b) Revelation. In Rev. the eg6 of Christ’s sayings and the ego of the pronounce-
ments of God occur side by side. The reason for this lies in the almost identical
positions that the writer attributes to Christ and God vis-a-vis the world, so that
sometimes the same egd-sayings can appear on the lips of both Christ and God. In
Rev. 1:8 God is the subject of the sentence, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, who
is and who was and who is to come’’, while in Rev. 1:17 f. the Son of man speaks,
“Tam the first and the last, and the living one.’’ Both verses are derived from Isa.
44:6. The first and the last corresponds to the Alpha and the Omega. The most
complete identification of Christ and God is expressed at the end of Rev. The
subject of the sentence in Rev. 21:6, “Iam the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning
and the end,” is God; in Rev. 22:13 it is Jesus. (In the latter case the words ‘‘the
first and the last” are inserted after Alpha and Omega, the first and last letters of
the Gk. alphabet.)
(c) Paul. Alongside of Paul’s autobiographical use of “I” (e.g. Gal. 1:13 ff.) is
the egd of Rom. 7:7 ff. which raises special problems. Three interpretations may
be mentioned. (i) Some scholars see a tension here with the description that Paul
gives in Phil. 3:6 of his life under the law as a Jew which he describes as “‘blameless’’.
The description in Rom. 7 is marked by conflict, strife and failure to keep the law.
Hence, they claim that the ego here is not autobiographical ([Ed.] although it may
be pointed out that the description of Paul’s former life as “‘blameless”’ in Phil.
3:6 implies no more than what passed for “‘blameless”” among the Jews). (ii) The
best known exegesis of Rom. 7 is that of the Reformers which applied the egd
generally to the life of every Christian and the dialectic of simul justus et peccator
(i.e. that believer was justified and a sinner at one and the same time). But some
think that this overlooks the development of thought from ch. 7 to ch. 8, where
Paul makes unambiguously positive statements about the Christian’s present life
in the Spirit (cf. the nyni or nyn in Rom. 3:21 and 8:1). ({Ed.] Nevertheless, it may
be noted that the conflict described in Rom. 7:21—25 between ‘“‘the law of God’’
which the ego delights in and serves with the mind and “the law of sin’’ which the
ego serves with the flesh is presented in the present tense. Moreover, it may be
282
I AM
asked whether the unbeliever does actually delight in “‘the law of God” in this
way.) (iii) An alternative view is represented by a number of modern exegetes,
including G. Bornkamm, H. Conzelmann and W. G. Kiimmel. This sees Paul in
Rom. 7 as looking back from the Christian’s standpoint over the human existence
under the law which Christ went through and overcame. In ch. 8 he describes what
is now intended for the Christian through the Spirit. It is only to Paul as a believer
that the hopeless inner strife and wretchedness of man under the law becomes
apparent. Thus, the egd of Rom. 7 embraces Paul’s own judgment, the standpoint
of Judaism under the law and the conflict of the man who wishes to assert himself.
({Ed.] For further discussion see M. Black, Romans, 1973, 100-108; G. Bornkamm,
“Sin, Law and Death (Romans 7)’, Early Christian Experience, 1969, 87-104;
H. Braun, Rom. 7, 7-25 und das Selbstverstandnis der Qumran Frommen, 1963;
R. Bultmann, “Romans 7 and the Anthropology of Paul’’, Existence and Faith,
1960, 147-57; C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, I, ICC, 1975, 340-370; E. Fuchs, “‘Existen-
tiale Interpretation von R6m. 7, 7-12 und 21-23’, Glaube und Erfahrung, 1965; H.
Jonas, “Philosophical Meditation on the Seventh Chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans’’, in J. M. Robinson, ed., The Future of Our Religious Past: Essays in
Honour of Rudolf Bultmann, 1971, 333-50; E. Kasemann, An die Romer, HNT 8a,
19743, 190-204; K. Kertelge, ZNW 62, 1971, 105-14; W. G. Kiimmel, “R6m. vil
und die Bekehrung des Paulus’’, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 17, 1929;
O. Kuss, Der Rémerbrief, I, 1963, 462-85; C. L. Mitton, ““Romans vii reconsidered”’
ExpT 65, 1953-54, 78 ff., 99 ff., 132 ff.; J. I. Packer, ““The Wretched Man in
Romans VII’, StudEv II, 1964, 621-27; O. J. F. Seitz, ‘““Two Spirits in Man: An
Essay in Biblical Exegesis”, NTS 6, 1959-60, 82-95; E. W. Smith, ““The Form and
Background of Romans 7, 24—25a”’, NovT 13, 1971, 127-35).
H.-G. Link
(a). W. J. P. Boyd, “‘ ‘Iam Alpha and Omega’ (Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13”, StudEv, II, 1961, 326 ff. ;
R. E. Brown “EGO EIMI — ‘I AM’’, The Gospel According to John, 1 1966, 532-38; R. Bultmann, The
Gospel of John, 1971, 225 ff.; H. Conzelmann, An Outline Theology of the New Testament, 1969,
349-52; D. Daube, “The ‘I am’ of the Messianic Presence’’, The New Testament and Rabbinic
Judaism, 1956, 325-29; W. D. Davies, ‘““Matthew 5:17, 18°’, Christian Origins and Judaism, 1962,
31-66; P. B. Horner, The ‘“‘I am” of the Fourth Gospel, 1971; W. Manson, ‘““The EGO EIMI of the
Messianic Presence in the New Testament’’, in Jesus and the Christian, 1967, 174-83; D. M.
Stanley, “‘ ‘I Am the Genuine Vine’ (John 15:1)”, The Bible Today, 8, 1963; 484-91; E. Stauffer,
egd, TDNT II 343-62.
(b). H. Becker, Die Reden des Johannesevangeliums und der Stil der gnostischen Offenbarungsrede,
FRLANT 68, 1956; R. Borig, Der wahre Weinstock, 1967; C. Colpe, ““Traditionstiberschreitende
Argumentation zu Aussagen Jesu tiber sich selbst”, in G. Jeremias et al., eds., Tradition und
Glaube, Festgabe K. G. Kuhn, 1971; G. Eichholz, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, BSt Neue Folge 46,
1965, 70f.; A. Feuillet, ‘““Les egd eimi christologiques du Quatriéme Evangile’’, Recherches de
Science Religieuse, 54, 1966, 5 ff., 213 ff.; A. Hajduk, ‘“‘Egé eimi bei Jesus und seine Messianitat”’,
Communio Viatorum 6, 1963, 55 ff.; A. Jaubert, ““L’Image de la Vigne (Jean 15)’, in Oikonomia
(O. Cullmann Festschrift), 1967, 93-99; E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 19267; K. Rudolf, Die
Mandaer, 1960; S. Schulz, Komposition und Herkunft der Johanneischen Reden, 1960, 70-131;
B. Schwank, “‘ ‘Ich bin der Wahre Weinstock’ (Joh. 15, 1-17)’’, Sein und Sendung 28, 1963, 244-58;
E. Schweizer, Egdé eimi. Die religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und theologische Bedeutung der
johanneischen Bildreden, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage des vierten Evangeliums, FRLANT
56, (1939) 1965?; G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 1962; W. Zimmerli, “Ich bin Jahwe’’,
Gottes Offenbarung, ThB 19, 1963; H. Zimmermann, “Das absolute egd eimi als die neutesta-
mentliche Offenbarungsformel’”’, BZ 4, 1960, 54-69, 266-76.
283
IMAGE
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example
The word image suggests a visual or mental representation. It may refer to the
object that is seen or to the mental representation of it that the observer forms in
his mind. Since the concept is a complex one, it is not surprising that various words
are used in Gk. and that these tend to merge and overlap. The terms used are:
charaktér, image, mark or stamp, formed by impressing a pattern; idea, appearance,
in Plato’s philosophy the archetypal forms which underly the entities in our material
world, in logic the class or kind (the term is important in Gk. philosophy, but is
not found in the NT); eikon, replica, likeness, image; eiddlon, image, outline, a
form which generally lacks substance and does not possess the same degree of
reality as eikon, in biblical Gk. it signifies an image of a god, an idol. Other related
concepts are typos, visible impression, copy, image, form, figure, type (— Type,
Pattern); and homoioma, likeness, image, appearance (— Like). apaugasma, efful-
gence, radiance, reflection; hypodeigma, proof, example, model; and paradeig-
matizo, expose to public disgrace, make an example of, are also discussed in this
article.
a eidwdov (eiddlon), image, idol; eidwAdOvtOVv (eiddlothy-
| | ton), meat offered to idols; eidw@Aéiov (eiddleion), temple
of an idol; katefd@Aoc (kateiddlos), full of idols; eid@AoAat pyc (eiddlolatrés),
idolater, worshipper of idols; efd@AoAatpia (eidélolatria), idolatry, worship of
idols.
CL eiddlon is used by Homer for the phantoms and shades in Hades (//. 5, 451; Od.
4, 796). It can also mean any unsubstantial form, an image reflected in a mirror
or water, an image or idea in the mind. Apart from Polybius 31, 3, 13-15, it was
not generally used for the images of the gods in cl. Gk. (— eikon).
oT Although eiddlon is used to render some 15 Heb. terms in the LXX, it refers
without exception to the images of the heathen gods and the deities represented
by them. They include gilltilim, idols (always in a disdainful sense, e.g. Lev. 26:30;
Deut. 29:16 [17]; Ezek. 6:4 ff., 13; 36:17f., 25; 37:23); and t°rapim, idols (again
used disdainfully, perhaps connected with the idea of perishing, Gen. 31:19; 34f;
—> Israel, art. Jakob, oT). To express the image of God in man, even where the Heb.
word is also applied to an idol, the term —> eikon is used. This Hel.-Jewish usage
reflects Jewish contempt for heathen polytheism. eiddleion and eidélion are also
Hel.-Jewish terms and are contemptuous expressions for the temples of heathen
idols (Ezr. 1:7 [LXX 1 Esd. 2:10]; Bel 9; 1 Macc. 10:83; 1 Cor. 8:10). Similarly
eidolothyton means meat offered to idols (4 Macc. 5:2; cf. 1 Cor. 8:1, 4, 7, 10;
10:19, 28 t.r.; Acts 15:29; 21:25; Rev. 2:14, 20; Did. 6:3).
The prohibition against serving other gods and the prohibition against making
eidéla are linked already in the Decalogue (Exod. 20:3f.; Deut. 5:7f.). The
depreciation of images based on this prohibition leaves its traces everywhere in the
OT. This does not imply, however, that there is no reality behind the heathen
idolatrous worship. Idols are bdelygmata, abominations, behind which stand
daimonia (> Demon), demonic powers, with which one cannot come into contact
without moving God to wrath (Deut. 32:16 f., 21). In 2 Chr. 24:18 the worship of
idols is equated with that of the Asherim, i.e. of the powers behind the idols.
284
IMAGE
Israel often succumbed to the temptation to open the doors to these powers,
especially when the rise of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires gave the impression
that their gods were more powerful than the God of Israel (Isa. 36:19 f.). Jer. 44:15-
19 and Ezek. 8 give graphic and terrible pictures of how widely heathen idol worship
had spread in Israel in their day. The prophetic message to Israel was that the
misfortune which had overtaken the people was God’s punishment for falling away
from Yahweh and compromising with the heathen cultus (Isa. 10:11; Jer. 9:13-16;
Ezek. 8:17 f.). The call to repentance combined a demand for right behaviour
towards one’s neighbour (Amos 5:14 f.; Hos. 4:1 ff.; Isa. 1:15 ff.) with the demand
to turn away from false gods (Hos. 14:8[9]). The prophets never grew tired of
stressing to the people how impotent and vain (mataios, Empty) were the idols
(Ezek. 8:10; 1 Chr. 16:26; 2 Chr. 25:15). For they are merely the creation of men’s
hands which cannot hear or see, or do anything (Hos. 8:4 f.; 13:2; Jer. 14:22;
Hab. 2:18 f.; cf. Ezek. 8:10; 2 Chr. 11:15). The sharpest polemic against the cult
images in an exilic setting occurs in Isa. 40:18 ff.; 44:9-20; 46:1 f. The making of
the idols is described in language that renders them ludicrous; and the power of
Yahweh who moulds history is contrasted with them (Isa. 45-48). He will destroy
the false gods (Jer. 10:10-15; Ezek. 6:4 ff., 13; Mic. 1:7), and men will throw away
their idols on the day of God’s judgment (Isa. 2:18 ff.).
This thought also appears in the polemic of late Judaism against idols and
polytheism (e.g. Wis. 14:15; the letter of Jeremiah in Bar. 6; and the story of Bel,
Ad. Dan. 14). Even though the gods of the heathen are looked on as nonentities,
contact with them is regarded as defiling (Ezek. 37:23). Houses defiled by the
presence of idols had to be ritually cleansed (1 Macc. 13:47). The thought that
demonic powers stand behind heathen idolatry lived in Rab. Judaism (SB III
48-60). Hence the pious Jew was strictly forbidden to eat meat offered to idols (SB
III 54, 377 f.).
In the Qumran texts “‘idol”’ is used metaphorically for the sins which, as “‘idols
of the heart” (cf. Ezek. 14:4), hinder men in their service of God (Heb. gillilim in
1QS 2:11, 17; 4:5; 1QM 4:15, 19; 1Q22 1:7; 4Qflor 1:17; CD 20:9; cf. A. R. C.
Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning, 1966, 134f.).
NT The NT continues the usage of the LXX. A sign of this is that hierothyton,
meat offered in sacrifice, found in secular Gk., occurs only in | Cor. 10:28
(on the lips of one who may be a pagan), while elsewhere we have eiddlothyton
(Acts 15:29; 21:25; 1 Cor. 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19; Rev. 2:14, 20). But there are also new
word formations not found in the LXX. In Acts 17:16 it is said that Athens was
kateidélos. On the analogy of katadendros, rich in trees, it is best to translate it
“full of idols.”’ Linked with latreia, service or worship of God (cf. Rom. 9:4; —
Serve) we find the compounds eid6lolatrés, idolater (4 times) and eidololatria,
idolatry (7 times). From the NT these words passed into early Christian lit-
erature.
1. The NT continues not merely the vocabulary of the OT but also its condem-
nation of the worship of false gods. The fact that this word-group is not found
in the Gospels indicates that in Palestine the controversy had ceased to be of
importance. As soon as the apostolic preaching moved into the non-Jewish, Helle-
nistic world it immediately revived. Turning to the “living and true God” (1 Thess.
285
IMAGE
1:9) was impossible without a turning away from idols and pagan worship. Their
retention was a sign of lack of repentance (Rev. 9:20).
Paul’s arguments in Rom. 1|:18—32 are particularly concerned with this contro-
versy. He showed himself a Jew in his stress on the nothingness of the idols, but he
recognized the demonic powers behind them to which a man subjects himself when
he participates in the heathen cultus. That is why eidololatria is one of the serious
sins against which Christians have repeatedly to be warned (1 Cor. 5:10 f.; 10:7,
14). Inthe lists of sins it is frequently mentioned, and stands linked with pharmakeia,
sorcery (— Magic), and pleonexia, — covetousness (cf. Gal. 5:19 ff.; Eph. 5:5;
Col. 3:5; Rev. 9:20 f.; 21:8; 22:15). According to Jesus, mammon (— Possessions)
is also a false god (Matt. 6:24).
2. From this basic attitude to idols it followed that Christians were debarred
from eating the meat of animals that had been offered in heathen — sacrifice.
The NT texts are consistent in this matter. According to Acts, the apostles were
unanimous that Gentile Christians should refrain from sacrificial meat, called in
this context alisgémata, pollutions (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). This prohibition adop-
ted at the apostolic council was justified by a reference to Jewish practice (15:21),
as we find also in Paul (1 Cor. 10:32). It presupposes that in this matter Jews and
Christians were basically in agreement.
In 1 Cor. 8 and 10 the practical problems that sprang from this basic attitude are
examined in detail. In ch. 8 Paul argues with those in Corinth who maintained that
the eating of such meat was harmless for they realized that the false gods had no
real existence (1 Cor. 8:1-6). Some scholars identify this group with gnostics (cf.
W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, 1971). Presumably the teachers of false
doctrine combatted in Rev. argued in the same way (Rev. 2:14, 20). Paul agreed
that idols had no real existence (1 Cor. 8:4), but expected that those who realize
this would out of love show consideration to those who did not; they must not
cause these to eat such meat (1 Cor. 8:9-—13).
Paul gives the underlying reasons for his attitude in ch. 10. Basing himself on
Deut. 32:17, he explains that demons stand behind the idols. — Fellowship with
Christ, which Christians enjoy in the Lord’s Supper, excludes communion with
these powers. Christians should not challenge the Lord. If they do, they will bring
down his judgment on them (1 Cor. 10:7—-10, 14-22). Christians were under no
obligation to enquire fearfully whether the meat bought in the market (generally
near the temple) or served at a meal came from a sacrifice. If, however, it was
pointed out that it was sacrificial meat, then, out of regard for the — conscience
of the one who pointed it out, Christians ought not to eat it, even if their own —
conscience (perhaps on the strength of Ps. 24:1) permitted it (1 Cor. 10:25-30).
The OT roots of the NT faith are particularly clearly visible in this consistent
condemnation of pagan worship and this attitude to sacrificial meat.
. W. Mundle
| ElK@V | eikav (eikon), image, likeness, form, appearance.
CL eik6on, derived from eoika, which has a present force, meaning to be similar, like
(from the rare eike, attested by Homer, meaning it seemed good, it appeared)
286
IMAGE
means image, copy: (a) a painting, statue, figure on a coin, figure of a god; (b) com-
parison, simile; (c) image, likeness, semblance, representation. In Gk. thought an
image shares in the reality of what it represents. The essence of the thing appears
in the image, e.g. the god is himself present and operative in his image (cf. magic
and miracles performed through images).
oT eikon is used for 5 different Heb. words including pese/ (Isa. 40:19 f.), t°btinah
(Hos. 13:2), d°miit (Gen. 5:1), and semel and sémel (Deut. 4:16; 2 Chr. 33:7),
but it occurs chiefly for selem (Gen. 1:26 f.; 5:1, 3; 9:6; | Sam. 6:11; 2 Ki. 11:18;
Pss. 39 [38]:6; 73 [72]:20; Ezek. 7:20; 16:17; 23:14; Dan. 2:31) and s°/ém (Dan.
2:31, 34 f.; 3:1-18). It has no Heb. equivalent in Wis. 2:23; 7:26; 13:13, 16; 14:15,
Ld 5252 T7212 Sit. 41723:
Already in the early period of belief in Yahweh associated with Moses images
were Strictly prohibited (Exod. 20:4; Deut. 27:15). For the image was not the
full reality and would only confuse Israel’s relationship with the true God (Deut.
4:16; 2 Ki. 11:18). Among Israel’s neighbours the image of a god served as a
means of controlling the god. It was a source of power in the priest’s hand in his
dealings with the deity (cf. K. H. Bernhardt, Gott und Bild, 1956). In the Babylonian
exile Israel learnt to mock the making of idols (Isa. 40:19 f.) but also to be terrified
by them (Ezek. 7:20; 8:5; 16:17; 23:14). Both lines of thought can be traced in
Dan. 2 and 3.
In contrast, Israel’s relationship with God is based on his — covenant and —
word. Religious images can reveal nothing of his nature (— eidd/on). Only man can
be called the image (selem) of God (Gen. 1:26 f.; 5:1 ff.; 9:6). The goal and purpose
of the image of God in man is dominion over the world. ‘“‘God set man in the world
as a sign of his own authority, in order that man should uphold his — God’s — claims
as Lord” (G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 146; cf. Ps. 8:5 f.; Sir.
17:3 f.). The OT knows nothing of man losing this image through the fall. ({Ed.]
This question was debated by Karl Barth and Emil Brunner in Natural Theology,
1946, where Brunner accused Barth of maintaining that the image was obliterated
by sin. Brunner held that the material aspect of the image which was bound up with
man’s original righteousness was in fact lost. But the formal aspect, man’s rational
nature, his capacity for culture, and his humanity, remain, and this provides a basis
for natural theology. To this Barth replied that Brunner’s argument was irrelevant
to establishing a natural theology, for the knowledge of God can only come from
God himself and this has nothing to do with man’s formal capacities. Subsequently
Barth modified his teaching on the divine image, without, however, taking Brunner’s
point. Referring to the plural subject in Gen. 1:26 [‘“Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness’’], Barth observes: ““The relationship between the summoning I
in God’s being and the summoned divine Thou is reflected both in the relationship
of God to the man whom he has created, and also in the relationship between the I
and the Thou, between male and female, in human existence itself” [CD III, 1, 196].
Barth understands the image in terms of the mutual relations between man and
woman which in turn reflects the relationship of Yahweh to Israel and Christ to the
church [cf. CD III 1, 183 ff., 201 ff., 322].)
The idea of the fall marring the image of God is implied in Wis. 2:23 (cf. Wis.
13-15). Rabbinic Judaism did not question the imago Dei (image of God) in
287
IMAGE
principle. But the possibility was considered that through an individual’s sin it
might be diminished or even lost (cf. G. Kittel, TDNT II 392 ff.).
NT In Matt. 22:20; Mk. 12:16; Lk. 20:24, eikon is used of the emperor’s image
on the denarius. These coins were hated by pious Jews, both because of their
implied breach of the second commandment and because it was an image of a
foreign ruler. (On this passage see J. D. M. Derrett, ““Render unto Caesar...” in
Law in the New Testament, 1970, 313-38; F. F. Bruce, ‘““Render to Caesar’’, in The
Zealots and Jesus, ed. C. F. D. Moule and E. Bammel [forthcoming]; — Caesar.)
In Rev. the image of the beast (13:14; — Animal; — Number) is a cultic image
(perhaps that of the emperor, or Nero redivivus [cf. R. H. Charles, The Revelation
of St. John, ICC, I, 1920, 360]). Worship of it means apostasy. The classical world
knew of images of the gods which spoke and moved (Rev. 13:15); cf. Charles, op.
cit., 361).
In Heb. 10:1 eikdn signifies the true form of the good things to come which has
appeared in Christ, in contrast to the law which is a mere shadow of these things.
In 2 Cor. 4:4 and Col. 1:15 Christ is said to be the image or likeness of God. There
is no difference here between the image and the essence of the invisible God. In
Christ we see God (cf. Jn. 14:9). By participating in Christ man has once more
gained the image of God (Rom. 8:29) which man was intended to be (1 Cor. 11:7).
Christ realized man’s destiny to be God’s image which was marred through sin.
In communion with Christ we are transformed into his image. Paul can speak of
this transformation as a present happening (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10), and also as a
yet future, eschatological event (1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21). “‘Like all the gifts in
which Christians share, the eik6n is an aparché [first fruits, — Sacrifice]... This
means that it now is, and yet that it is still to be” (G. Kittel, TDNT II 397).
O. Flender
nana yapaktnp (charaktér), impress, stamp, reproduction,
AOPOSNE representation, outward appearance, form.
CL & OT charaktér (Aeschylus onwards) is a noun derived from charass6o, notch,
indent, and means one who sharpens, scratches, and later one who writes in
stone, wood or metal. Thence it came to mean an embosser and a stamp for making
coins, and from this, looking to the result, the embossed stamp made on the coin,
character in writing, style. Finally, it came to mean the basic bodily and psycho-
logical structure with which one is born, which is unique to the person and which
cannot be changed by education or development, though it may be hidden or
effaced. Hence, it also means individuality, personal characteristics. In Philo the
human soul is called the charaktér of divine power and the Logos is entitled the
charaktér of God (cf. Leg. All. 3, 95-104; Ebr. 133, 137; Rer. Div. Her. 38; Plant.
18; Det. Pot. Ins. 83).
This concept cannot really be found in the OT, though it reminds us slightly of
the passages about the imago Dei. The word is found in the LXX (e.g. Lev. 13:28),
but without a specific theological meaning (for Heb. sdrebet, scar).
NT charaktér is found only once in the NT. Christ is the charaktér tés hypostaseos
autou, “the very stamp of his [God’s] nature’ (Heb. 1:3 RSV), 1.e. the One on
288
IMAGE
whom God has stamped or imprinted his being. This means that the NT use is
entirely different from our modern concept of character which develops itself by a
will that seeks to conform to principles. Similarly, when Heb. 5:8 declares that
Jesus learnt obedience through what he suffered, there is no thought of our concept
of character-formation. It is probably linked with the Son’s obedience to the Father
tested in temptation (O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrder, KEK 13, 19661? ad loc.).
The Son possesses the stamp of God’s nature just as he is the — apaugasma tés
doxés tou theou, “‘the effulgence of God’s splendour’? (NEB). He who sees and
recognizes him, sees and knows the Father (Jn. 14:7 ff.); cf. also > eik6n tou theou,
the image of God.
The context of Heb. | makes it clear that the writer’s purpose was to stress the
glory of the Son who had entered history and the uniqueness of the revelation of
God in the unique One. In v. 3 we have probably an early hymn, as in Phil. 2:6 ff.
and 1 Tim. 3:16. The Son who controls the beginning and the end (v. 2) stands ina
unique relationship (a) to God whose effulgence (— apaugasma) and stamp
(charaktér) he is; (b) to the universe which he upholds; and (c) to the church which
he has purified from sins. The Epistle is equally concerned with the pre-existent,
the historical and the glorified Christ in whom we have our true High — Priest.
Commenting on the word charaktér, F. F. Bruce writes: ‘“‘Just as the image and
superscription on a coin exactly correspond to the device on the die, so the Son of
God ‘bears the very stamp of his nature’ (RSV). The Greek word charakter,
occurring only here in the New Testament, expresses this truth even more emphatic-
ally than eikén, which is used elsewhere to denote Christ as the ‘image’ of God
(II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Just as the glory is really in the effulgence, so the substance
(Gk. hypostasis) of God is really in Christ, who is its impress, its exact representa-
tion and embodiment. What God essentially is, is made manifest in Christ. To see
Christ is to see what the Father is like’’ (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,
NLC, 1964, 6). J. Gess
ATAVYACLLA amavyacua (apaugasma), radiance, effulgence, reflection.
apaugasma may be translated either as effulgence, radiance (in the act. sense) or
reflection (in the pass. sense). It derives from augazd, to shine forth, or to illum-
inate (2 Cor. 4:4). diaugazo is found in 2 Pet. 1:19 in the first meaning. The
cognate noun augé, radiance, is rendered at Acts. 20:11 by dawn, or daybreak, i.e.
when the sun shines forth.
CL apaugasma is found only in Hellenistic writers who use the noun with the
meanings noted above. It is not attested before the Wisdom of Solomon, but a
Stoic influence on Philo’s use of the term has been suspected. Philo says that what
God breathed into Adam was “‘an effulgence”’ [apaugasma] of his blessed, thrice-
blessed nature” (Spec.Leg. 4, 123; cf. Philo in Op. Mund. 146). In Plant. 50 (cf. Mut.
Nom. 181; Som. 1, 71, 115, Migr.Abr. 71) Philo uses apaugasma as a synonym of
— eikon and miméma meaning “reflection”. The same sense is attested in Plutarch,
Mor. 83d, 934d. Of special interest for the NT background is the use of cognate
terms in the Isis aretalogies, found at Cyme. Isis confesses: egé en tais tou héliou
289
IMAGE
augais eimi, ‘| am in the beams of the sun’’. Isis is also praised as enlightener of the
world and an emanation of God.
oT The most significant text is Wis. 7:25 f., where divine wisdom is hailed as ‘‘a
breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty
... she is a reflection of eternal light [apaugasma . . . estin phdtos aidiou], a spotless
mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness [eikon tés agathotétos
autou].”’ In this setting wisdom is hypostatized as a source of light whose shining
forth (apaugasma) is understood as “effulgence”’ or “reflection” (RSV). The former
meaning finds support in the view that, since wisdom is praised for her active role
in uniting man and God, the sense of “‘radiance”’ is better. But most scholars prefer
“reflection’’, though with hesitation.
NT The single text to be considered is Heb. 1:3: hos on apaugasma tés doxés kai
charaktér tés hypostaseds autou, where there are several echoes of the Wis.
tribute. In Heb. the verse stands in a doxological, possibly hymnic tribute to the
cosmic Christ who is described as either the radiance of the divine doxa as the sun-
light conveys the brightness and intensity of the sun (Kittel: we may compare for
this sense, Philo, Som. 1, 239), or God’s reflection in a way comparable with the
thought of Christ as the eikon, “‘image”’ or mirror (Wis. 7:26) or the morphé (RSV
‘‘form’’) of God (— Form, arts. morphé and hypostasis). Either way, the verse is a
piece of wisdom christology that interprets Christ as the supreme and final revela-
tion of the Father. On balance, the act. sense of “‘radiance’’ is to be chosen in
preference to “‘reflection”’. R. P. Martin
| UNOOELYLLG | bmddElypa (hypodeigma), proof, example, model.
CL The classical form is paradeigma (much preferred to hypodeigma by Phrynichus,
Eclogae 4). In Hellenistic Greek hypodeigma means an example (with paradeigma
as a synonym, Plutarch, Agesilaus, 15, 4) with a transferred sense of demonstration,
sample, pattern or model (— typos is a synonym), in either the good sense of a model
to copy or as a warning example of what to avoid.
The main occurrences of the noun are in Polybius, used of examples seen in
soldiers (3, 17, 8), in Hannibal’s speeches (3, 111, 6) or a rhetorical “‘proof” in a
speech (6, 54, 6). Liddell-Scott (1878) cite inscriptions that have pros hypodeigma
aretés (“for example of virtue’’), a usage paralleled in Plutarch, De Marcello, 20, 1
(‘examples of civic virtues’).
Philo has an important discussion of the Levitical tabernacle as a model of the
divine plan (Leg. A/l. 3, 102) which Moses glimpsed and Bezalel constructed (Som.
1, 206; Vit.Mos. 2,76; “‘the shape of the model” (ho typos tou paradeigmatos; see
too Leg. All. 3, 108).
OT The occurrences of the noun are in Ezek. 42:15 (RSV “temple area’’, where
LXX has the “ground-plan of the house’’); Sir. 44:16, Enoch was “tan example
of repentance’’: 2 Macc. 6:28, 31, the Maccabean martyrs are a “‘noble example’,
as in 4 Macc. 17:23.
290
IMAGE
NT The usage divides between the two meanings given in the LXX: (a) a “‘figure”’
or “‘copy’’, a meaning restricted to Heb. 8:5; 9:23. The Levitical furnishings
and service function as a “‘copy’’ (RSV) of their heavenly counterparts which, for
the author, alone have substantial reality; (b) “example” in the twofold way of
either issuing a call to imitation, as in Jn. 13:15 and Jas. 5:10; or in the bad sense
serving as a warning, as in Heb. 4:11 and 2 Pet. 2:6. R. P. Martin
bnoypauuoc (hypogrammos), lit. under-writing, outline,
UTOY PAULLOG copy, example.
The word is late. Philo uses it in the sense of outline, as a near-synonym of
skia, shadow (frag. 7). The commonest use of the noun (cf. the vb. hypographo)
is for the faint outlines of letters which were traced over by pupils learning to write,
then also of the sets of letters written at the top of a page or other piece of writing
material to be copied repeatedly by the learner on the rest of the page (cf. Clem.
Alex., Strom. 5, 8, 49, 48). It is this sense which is applied metaphorically in | Pet.
2:21 to the example left by Christ for his disciples to follow, especially in his patient
endurance of undeserved suffering. (— Scripture, Writing NT | (b) (end).)
F. F. Bruce
mapadelypatilw (paradeigmatizod), expose to public
Ma padelypatiCo disgrace, make an example of.
The compound verb is more frequently found than the simple deigmatizd to ex-
pose, exhibit, make public (Matt. 1:19 v./.; Col. 2:15). The prefix para- has an
intensive force, so the vb. comes to mean to expose to public disgrace.
CL The vb. is late Gk. In Polybius the chief meanings are to make a public example
of someone, such as Aristomachus the tyrant (2, 60, 7), the people of Rhodes
(29, 19, 5), or the revolt of the Aravacae (35, 2, 10). See too Plutarch, Mor. 520b,
in the sense of to make oneself infamous or “‘a sorry spectacle’. In the meaning of
example in the good sense, there are several illustrations in the papyri (e.g. P.Oxy.
II, 237, “‘following a most illustrious example’’).
OT The vb. is understood as to “hang publicly” (Num. 25:4 LXX) as a method of
execution which involves public exposure. The same meaning is seen in Ezek.
28:17 and Dan. 2:5; and also in 3 Macc. 7:14 (of the apostate Jews who deserve to
be put to a shameful death) and in Mordecai’s prayer in the Gk. additions to
Esther (following 4:17).
NT The only texts to use the verb are Matt. 1:19 (v./. where the stronger verb
paradeigmatizo is weakly attested) and Heb. 6:6. Rejection of Christ by apostasy
means that he is crucified anew and put to open disgrace. Apostates and /apsi
expose him to public shame in that act of denial. The association of the vb. with
anastauroo (crucify again) may be a reminiscence of the fate of the leaders of the
Jewish apostasy at Baal-peor who were ‘“‘hung up”’ before Yahweh (Num. 25:4, see
above). R. P. Martin
— Follow, — Form, — Like, Equal, — Mark, Brand, — Type, Pattern
291
IMAGE
On eidélon and cognates:
Arndt, 220; F. Biichsel, eidolon etc., TDNT II 375-80; J. C. Hurd, Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians,
1965; Liddell-Scott, 384 f.
On eikon:
(a). K. Barth, CD III 1, 182~206; G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, 1962; D. Cairns,
The Image of God in Man, 1953; H. von Campenhausen, ‘‘The Theological Problem of Images in
the Early Church’’, Tradition and Life in the Church, 1968, 171-200; W. Dirig, ““Image’’, EBT II
392 ff.; D. J. A. Clines, ‘““The Image of God in Man’’, Tyndale Old Testament Lecture, 1967, TB
19, 1968, 53-103 (contains extensive review of other writers on the subject); W. Eichrodt, Theology
of the Old Testament, II, 1967, 122-31; F. Horst, ‘‘Face to Face. The Biblical Doctrine of the
Image of God’’, Interpretation 4, 1950, 259-70; P. K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female: A Study
in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View, 1975; G. Kittel, G. von Rad, H. Klein-
necht, eikdn, TDNT II 381-97; A. R. C. Leaney, ‘“‘Conformed to the Image of His Son” NTS 10,
1963-64, 470-79; J. M. Miller, ‘“‘In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God’’, JBL 91, 1972, 289-304; T.
W. Overholt, ““The Falsehood of Idolatry’, JTS New Series 16, 1965, 1-12; R. H. Pfeiffer, ‘Images
of Yahweh’’, JBL 45, 1926, 211-22; N. W. Porteous, ‘“‘Image of God’’, 1DB II 682-85; R. Prins,
“The Image of God in Adam and the Restoration of Man in Jesus Christ”’, S/T 25, 1972, 32-44; G.
von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 212-19; J. F. A. Sawyer, ‘““‘The Meaning of b*selem
’elohim (‘In the Image of God’) in Genesis I-II’’, JTS New Series 25, 1974, 418-26; S. G. Wilson,
“Image of God’, ExpT 85, 1973-74, 356-61; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament,
1974, 159-66.
On the role of images and symbolism in revelation and religious knowledge see E. R. Bevan,
Symbolism and Belief, 1938; G. Cope, Symbolism in the Bible and in the Church, 1959; F. W.
Dillistone, ed., Myth and Symbol, SPCK Theological Collections 7, 1966 (includes papers by P.
Tillich, M. Eliade, I. T. Ramsey and others); T. Fawcett, The Symbolic Language of Religion, 1970;
S. Hook, ed., Religious Experience and Truth: A Symposium, 1962; E. L. Mascall, Words and
Images, 1957; and Theology and Images, 1963.
(b). K. H. Bernhardt, Gott und Bild, 1956; E. Brunner, ‘“‘Der Ersterschaffene als Gottes Ebenbild”’,
EvTh 11, 1951-52, 298 ff.; W. Duirig, Jmago, 1952; F. Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament, BZNW
23, 1958; J. B. Frey, ‘“‘La Question des Images chez les Juifs 4 la Lumiére des Récentes Découvertes’’,
Biblica 15, 1934, 265 ff.; H. Gross, ‘‘Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen’’, in Lex Tua Veritas.
Festschrift fiir Hubert Junker, ed. H. Gross et al., 1961, 89-100; J. Hempel, Das Bild in Bibel und
Gottesdienst, 157; P. Humbert, “‘ ‘L’/mago Dei dans |’Ancien Testament”, Etudes sur le Récit du
Paradis et de la Chute dans la Genése, 1940, 153-75; J. Jervell, Imago Dei. Gen. 1:26 f. im Spatju-
dentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulinischen Briefen, FRLANT 28, 1960; L. Koehler, ‘““Die Grund-
stelle der Imago-Dei-Lehre, Gen. 1:26”, ThZ 4, 1948, 16ff.; J. Konrad, Abbild und Ziel der
Schdpfung. Untersuchungen zur Exegese von Genesis I und 2 in Barths Kirchlicher Dogmatik LI, 1,
1962; E. Larsson, Christus als Vorbild, 1962; E. Lohse, ‘“‘Imago Dei bei Paulus’’, in Libertas
Christiana (Festschrift F. Delikat), Beitrage zu Evangelischer Theologie 26, 1957; K. L. Schmidt,
‘‘Homo Imago Dei im Alten Testament und Neuen Testament’, Eranos-Jahrbuch 15, 1947-48,
154 ff.; H. Schrade, Der verborgene Gott, 1949; G. Sdhngen, ‘‘Die biblische Lehre von der Gotte-
benbildlichkeit des Menschen”, Miinchener Theologische Zeitschrift 2, 1951, 42 ff.; J. J. Stamm,
‘Die Imago-Lehre von Karl Barth und die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft”’, in Antwort. Festschrift
fiir Karl Barth, ed. E. Wolf et al., 1956, 84-98; and Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im
Alten Testament, 1959; C. Stange, ‘‘Das Ebenbild Gottes’”’, TLZ 949, 79 ff.; W. Vischer, ‘‘Du sollst
dir kein Bildnis machen’’, in Antwort, 764-72; T. C. Vriezen, ‘“La Création de l Homme d’aprés
VImage de Dieu’’, Oudtestamentische Studién 2, 1943, 87-103; C. Westermann, “Bild”, BHHW I
249 ff.; H. Wildberger, ““Das Abbild Gottes”, ThZ 21, 1965, 245-59, 481-501.
On charakteér:
(a). Arndt, 884; J. Geffcken, ‘Character’, ExpT 21, 1909-10, 426 f.; Liddell-Scott, 1977; U.
Wilckens and G. Kelber, charaktér, TDNT IX 418-23; R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums, 4, 1970, 74-80.
(b). F. J. Dolger, Sphragis, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 5, 3/4, 1911; F. W.
Eltester, Eikon im Neuen Testament, BZNW 23, 1958, 52 ff.; A. Korte, “CHARAKTER’’, Hermes
64, 1929, 69-86.
292
IMAGE/INCENSE
On apaugasma: ;
(a). G. Kittel, augazo, apaugasma, TDNT I 507f.; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 1972; J. M. Reese,
Hellenistic Influences on the Book of Wisdom, 1970. Commentaries on Hebrews by F. F. Bruce
(NLC, 1964); H. W. Montefiore (BNTC, 1964); J. Héring (1970).
(b). R. Deichgraber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frithen Christenheit, 1967; F. W.
Eltester, Eikdn im Neuen Testament, 1958: A. J. Festugiére, ‘“L’arétalogie d’Isis de la Koré Kosmu’’,
Revue Archéologique 6, 1949, 376-81; J. Jervell, Imago Dei, 1960 (on the theological aspects);
C. Larcher, Etudes sur le Livre de la Sagesse, 1969; B. L. Mack, Logos und Sophia. Untersuchungen
zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum, 1973, P. Roussel, “‘Un nouvel hymne a Isis’,
Revue des Etudes Grecques 42, 1929, 137-68; A. Salac¢, “Hymne isiaque de Kume’’, Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellénique 51, 1927, 378-83; W. Schencke, Die Chokma (Sophia) in der jiidischen
Hypostasenspekulation, 1913; C. Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hébreux, III, 1952-53; K. Wengst, Christo-
logische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, 1972.
On hypodeigma:
Arndt, 851; E. K. Lee, ‘““Words Denoting ‘Patterns’ in the New Testament”, N7S 8, 1961-62,
166-73; Liddell-Scott, 1878; H. Schlier, hypodeigma, TDNT II 32 f. Commentaries on Hebrews
by F. F. Bruce (NEC, 1964); H. W. Montefiore (BNTC, 1964); C. Spicq, I-II (1952-53).
On paradeigmatizo:
Arndt, 619; Moulton-Milligan, 481 f.; H. Schlier, paradeigmatizd, TDNT II 32. Commentaries on
Hebrews by F. F. Bruce (NLC, 1964); C. Spica, I-II (1952-53); A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s
Technique and Theology, 1974, 4 ff.; G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 1973, 105-121.
Incense, Myrrh
[Aipavos | AiBavoc (libanos), AiBavatdc (libandtos), frankincense;
Ovuiapa (thymiama), incense; Ovuid@ (thymiad), burn
incense; Ovuuiaty piov (thymiatérion), censer.
CL (a) In secular Gk. /ibanos is the frankincense-tree, Boswellia carterii, of India,
Arabia, and Somalia; and, by extension, the tree’s aromatic gum frankincense,
for which the derivative Jibandtos is also used (Herodotus).
(b) thymiama (incense) is the general term for fragrant substances (i) burned with
sacrifices or for fumigation purposes, or (ii) used in embalming. The vb. thymiad
(from thyo, offer in sacrifice) means to burn so as to produce smoke, and more
particularly to burn incense or to fumigate. The related noun thymiatérion is the
censer.
oT (a) Apart from one instance of libandtos (1 Chr. 9:29), the LXX always uses
libanos for the Heb. /*bénah (white, the colour of the gum when first solidified).
Brittle, glittering, and bitter to the taste, frankincense produced a gratifying if
expensive fragrance when burned (Cant. 3:6; 4:6, 14). Besides being an ingredient
of the special incense constantly used in OT worship, pure frankincense was burned
with showbread (Lev. 24:7) and cereal-offering (Lev. 2:2), but not sin-offerings
Lev. 5:11).
(b) thymiama (incense) and its verb thymiad occur frequently for the Heb.
q°toret (sweet smoke) and gittér or higtir (make sacrifices smoke). thymiatérion in the
LXX always means censer (2 Chr. 26:19; Ezek. 8:11; 4 Macc. 7:11). The holy
incense was a special compound reserved for the divine service (Exod. 30:34—35)
and used to strict instructions (Lev. 16:12-13; cf. Lev. 10:1-11). Morning and
evening the high priest burned incense before the veil of the holy of holies (Exod.
293
INCENSE
30:7, 8). On the Day of Atonement he entered the holy of holies carrying burning
incense, the fumes of which provided an atonement (Heb. kpr, cover) for him as he
approached the mercy-seat (Lev. 16:12-13; cf. Num. 16:46). Rising incense smoke
symbolized praise (Isa. 60:6) and prayer (Ps. 141:2), worship fragrant to God. In
the messianic age converted Gentiles will gladly bring abundant incense to the
Temple (Isa. 60:6), indicative of their newly begun worship of God.
NT 1. Primary Meanings. (a) The frequent part played by incense in Jewish worship
is reflected in the many OT references. In the NT, however, /ibanos occurs only
twice (Matt. 2:11; Rev. 18:13) and has its literal meaning of frankincense. In Rev.
8:3, 5 libandtos unusually means not frankincense but censer, the vessel for carrying
incense.
(b) thymiao (burn incense) occurs only in Lk. 1:9-11, together with the noun
thymiama. In the second Temple the daily offering of incense devolved upon
ordinary priests. One “‘new to the incense’’, 1.e. one without the privilege before,
was chosen by lot (Mishnah Yoma 2.4). Zechariah was carrying out this duty for
the only time in his life when he had his vision. thymiatérion appears once (Heb.
9:4) and is translated not as censer (so always in the LXX) but as altar of incense.
2. Extended Meanings. (a) libanos (frankincense), brought to the infant Jesus
(Matt. 2:11), symbolizes both his divinity and his priestly office of intercession
(Heb. 7:25). The bringing of frankincense by Gentiles to the messiah was a Jewish
expectation (Isa. 60:6). In Rev. 8:3, 5 the association of one and the same censer
(libanotos) with intercession and judgment shows the potency of Christian prayer in
fulfilling God’s purposes.
(b) Apart from Lk. 1:10, 11 thymiama occurs only in Rev. 5:8; 8:3, 4, where
incense in the heavenly temple represents the prayers of the saints.
N. Hillyer
| ouipva | gpuvpva (smyrna), myrrh; pvpov (myron), ointment,
perfume.
OT Myrrh is a gum which comes from the Commiphora myrrha which grows in
Somaliland, Ethiopia and Arabia and which exudes from the trunk and branches
giving a pleasant fragrance. The LXX uses smyrna to translate the Heb. mdr or
mor. In Exod. 30:23 it is an important ingredient in the anointing oil used in the
consecration of the tabernacle and the priests. In Ps. 45(44):8 its fragrance is
mentioned in connection with the oil of gladness with which God anoints his
chosen king. It is also mentioned in Cant. 3:6; 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5, 13; Sir. 24:15; cf.
Est..2:12.
The word translated as myrrh in Gen. 37:25; 43:11 is the Heb. lot (Gk. stakté),
probably meaning laudanum, as at the time myrrh may not have been introduced.
It was an item of trade and was regarded as a worthy gift.
NT smyrna was among the gifts brought to the infant Jesus brought by the Gentile
Magi (Matt. 2:11). Here and elsewhere outside the Bible it is mentioned to-
gether with incense (cf. TDNT IV 264; VII 458). The gifts might have been inter-
preted as a fulfilment of Ps. 72(71):10 f. (cf. SB I 83 f. for rabbinic messianic inter-
pretation of this passage and also Ps. 68:31 f.).
294
INCENSE/INHERITANCE
At the burial of Jesus Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing
a hundred pounds (Jn. 19:39). The large amount was probably an expression of
honour. Jn. 19:40 indicates that the practice was followed of laying the spices
(aromata) between the clothes in which the body was wrapped (cf. also Mk. 16:1;
Lk. 23:56; 24:1). This attempt to preserve the body of Jesus suggests that none of
those involved expected an immediate resurrection.
The passive participle of the vb. smyrnizo occurs in Mk. 15:23 in the reference to
the “‘wine mingled with myrrh”’ which was offered to Jesus by the soldiers prior to
the crucifixion. This is often taken to be an anodyne given to condemned prisoners
to blunt their consciousness (cf. San. 43a). However, W. Michaelis thinks that
this was just a drink given by the soldiers to the exhausted (7 DNT VII 459). But
— Gall, Poison, Wormwood.
The word myron is probably best translated as ointment or perfume (cf. Matt.
26:7, 12; Mk. 14:3 ff.; Lk. 7:37 f., 46; 28:56; Jn. 11:2; 12:3, 5; Rev. 18:13).
C. Brown
(a). Arndt, 531, 766; H. F. Beck, “‘Incense’’, /DB II 697 f.; G. W. van Beek, ‘“‘Frankincense and
Myrrh’’, BA 23, 1960, 70-95; K. Galling, ‘“‘Incense Altar”, /DB II 699 f.; M. Haran, ‘“‘The Use of
Incense’, Vetus Testamentum 10, 1960, 113-29; W. Michaelis, /ibanos, libandtos, TDNT IV 263 f.;
and smyrna etc., TDNT VII 459 ff.; H. N. and A. L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 1952; W. E.
Shewell-Cooper, ‘““Myrrh’’, ZPEB IV 326; J. A. Thompson, “Incense”, ZPEB III 274 ff.; L. E.
Toombs, “‘Incense, Dish for’’, DB II 698 f.; J. C. Trever, ‘““Myrrh’’, 7/DB III 478 f.
(b). F. Blome, Die Opfermaterie in Babylonien und Israel, 1934; M. Lohr, Das Raucheropfer im
Alten Testament, 1927; I. Low, Die Flora der Juden, I-IV, 1926-34 (see index); A. Schmidt, Drogen
und Drogenhandel im Altertum, 1924.
Inheritance, Lot, Portion
The idea of inheritance in the Bible is a reminder that God has not intended man
to lead an autonomous, isolated, self-sufficient existence. Man’s life has an allotted
place in the great movement of history. God has given him both gifts and respon-
sibilities to be exercised with regard to others. The Gk. word k/éros, inheritance,
and other words related to it are used to express that which is received from the
past. But they also look forward to the future. In its deepest, theological sense the
believer’s inheritance is something which comes from God himself. In the OT it
has a physical dimension in the shape of the promised land. In the NT it is a spiri-
tual inheritance which comes through the — kingdom of God and the promise of
eternal — life. Like the — covenant, the concept of inheritance expresses a funda-
mental relationship between God and man. It depicts God’s desire to give his
people a secure abode. On the other hand, this group of words by itself does
not convey how men may enter into this inheritance. The word meros, part, is also
included here, because it involves the idea of sharing.
AA KAW pos (kleros), inheritance, lot; kAn pow (kléroo), cast
| KAipos | lots, determine by lot; xKAypovoyéw (kléronomed),
inherit; «Ay povoyta (kléronomia), inheritance; Ay povdpoc (kléronomos), inheritor,
heir; avvxdAy povopuos (synkléronomos), fellow heir.
295
INHERITANCE
cL kléros is derived from klad, break. In the first instance it means a lot. Used
from Homer on it meant originally the fragment of stone or piece of wood
which was used as a lot. Lots were drawn to discover the will of the gods. Since
land was divided by lot, probably in the framework of common use of the fields,
kléros came to mean a share, land received by lot, plot of land, and finally inheri-
tance. The vb. belonging to this is k/érod, to draw lots, apportion by lot. kléronomia
compounded from k/léros and nemo, allot, is first the activity of dividing by lot,
then the portion so divided, the inheritance. The k/éronomos is one who has been
given a kléros, the inheritor. synkléronomos is a fellow heir, and kléronomed means
be an heir, inherit.
oT 1. Lots (Heb. géral) were drawn in the OT also to discover God’s will. The
high priest wore the lots, Urim and Thummim, in the breastplate of judgment
attached to the ephod (Exod. 28:30; Lev. 8:8). He discovered the will of God by
their means (Num. 27:21; Ezr. 2:63; Neh. 7:65). According to the Blessing of
Moses (Deut. 33), the discovery of God’s will and the teaching of his law (t6réh)
belong together (vv. 8, 10). A linguistic link between torah and the vb. yardh, to
throw, i.e. cast lots to ascertain God’s will, has been suggested, but many authori-
ties question this and numerous derivations have been put forward (cf. Koehler-
Baumgartner, 403). All heathen and magical oracles and oracular methods were an
abomination to Yahweh and were denied to Israel by divine decree (Deut. 18:9-14).
Guidance by lots was permitted only when carried out in obedience to God. But
even there God could refuse to give an answer (1 Sam. 14:37; 28:6), or forbid the
casting of lots (according to some interpretations of Ezek. 24:6; but cf. RV, RSV,
NEB). On the other hand, God could reveal himself to the heathen through the
casting of lots and other means of divination (Jon. 1:7; Ezek. 21:21 [MT 21:26].
(On the Urim and Thummim see H. L. Ellison, “Urim and Thummim’’, ZPEB V
850 ff.; J. Lindblom, “‘Lot-Casting in the Old Testament’, Vetus Testamentum 12,
1962, 164 ff.; I. Mendelsohn, “‘Urim and Thummim’’, /DB IV 739 ff.; E. Robert-
son, “The Urim and Thummim; What were they?’’, Vetus Testamentum 14, 1964,
67 ff.; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1961, 350 ff.)
There are numerous examples of the casting of lots in Israel. In Jos. 7:14 and
| Sam. 14:41 lots were used to discover the one under the ban. Saul was chosen as
king by lot (1 Sam. 10:20 f.). In Chr. and Neh. lots were cast for priestly office and
to choose who was to live in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Chr. 24:5 f.). In NT times priestly
functions in the Temple were fixed by lot and lots continued to be cast over the
goats (Lev. 16:8) on the Day of Atonement (SB II 596 f.). Lots could be used in
legal actions (Prov. 18:18). Captives and booty could be divided by lot among the
victors (Joel 3:3 [MT 4:3]; Obad. 11; Nah. 3:10; Ps. 22:18 [MT 22:19]). Even ina
later, more sophisticated period it was recognized that God controlled the lot
(Prov. 16:33).
2. Of special significance is the relationship of casting lots and the settlement of
the land. Two different conceptions emerge in the OT.
(a) The one is clearly derived from cultic circles. It maintains that the land is
Yahweh’s inheritance (e.g. 1 Sam. 26:19; Jer. 2:7; Ezek. 38:16; Joel 1:6; Pss.
68:9 [MT 68:10]; 79:1) in which he lives and should be worshipped (Jos. 22:19;
Exod. 15:17). The idea that the land is God’s property is found generally in the
296
INHERITANCE
cultic systems of Israel’s neighbours and appears in the Baal cultus. It is, however,
very difficult to derive the OT concept from its Canaanite background. ““The
notion that Yahweh is the true owner of the land can be traced to the very oldest
commandments of Yahweh, and was evidently current at a time when syncretism
with the features of Canaanite religion had not even begun to appear’ (G. von
Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966, 88). In the OT the
landowner is no mythical deity like Baal linked with the soil, but the God who acts
in history, who brought his people out of — Egypt, and chose them from among
the other peoples (Deut. 32:8 f.; 1 Ki. 8:51, 53). Hence, we frequently find the
statement that not merely the land but also Israel itself is God’s heritage (e.g.
Deut. 9:26—29; 2 Ki. 21:14; Isa. 19:25; 47:6; Jer. 10:16 = 51:19; Mic. 7:18; Joel
2:17 f.; Pss. 33:12; 74:2). It is also expressed by saying that Israel is God’s property
(s°gullah, Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18). Sometimes it is not clear whether
Israel or the land is meant, for land and people belong so closely together by God’s
appointment (cf. 2 Sam. 14:16, cf. Joel 3:2 [MT 4:2]).
(b) However, the other, more historical idea is the predominant conception in
the OT. The land is Israel’s heritage which had been promised by God already to
—> Abraham and the patriarchs and was given to Israel through conquest. Under
Joshua, Israel took possession of the land from God, conquering it and dividing it by
lot (e.g. Num. 26:52-56; Jos. 13:19). The — Levites also had their cities appor-
tioned to them by lot (1 Chr. 6:54-81 [MT 6:39-65]). The conclusion to the
division of the land is given by Jos. 21:43 ff. Since the land is God’s, God’s regu-
lations should control it. Israel is called to keep God’s — commandments, in
order to live and remain in the land (Deut. 30:15—20; Jos. 22:1—5; cf. Jer. 7:1-7).
The recurring statement that the priests and Levites have “‘no portion or inheri-
tance with their brothers; the Lord is their inheritance”’ (Deut. 10:9; 18:1 f.; 12:12;
Num. 18:20; Jos. 13:14, cf. Ezek. 44:28) calls for special attention in this context.
In the first instance it states a regulation for the Levites’ livelihood, giving them a
share in the offerings and cultic gifts. Yet through the example of the Levites Israel
is to learn that God’s people must not seek safety and security through the land
but only in the Lord and giver of the land, Yahweh.
The affirmations of faith in the Pss. that God is the comfort and portion of the
one who prays contain the same thought (73:25 f.; 142:5 [MT 142:6]; Lam. 3:24).
“The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; thou holdest my lot. The lines have
fallen for me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage’’ (Ps. 16:5 f.). In the
last analysis, such affirmations of faith go back to the promise to — Abraham to
whom God promised not merely descendants and land, but also that he himself
would be his shield and exceeding great reward (Gen. 15:1 RV). This promise was
fulfilled in the conquest, but was not exhausted by it.
The message of the post-exilic prophets links these two groups of statements,
showing that God stands by his promises. Even though the people have been exiled
the land and its mountains remain theirs. The Lord will give it anew to his people
(Ezek. 36 f.). Once again it will be divided by lot (Ezek. 45:1; 47:13 f.; 48:29; Isa.
49:8). Aliens also will receive their portion (Ezek. 47:22 f.).
The OT statements may have many strata and may frequently interlock, but
there is always a link between the conquest and the lot. Moreover, it always
testifies to Yahweh’s action in history among his people whom he chose and to
297
INHERITANCE
whom he gave the land by lot. According to Jos. 13-19, it was divided by lot among
the tribes after Israel had conquered it at God’s command. After the death of
Joshua the allotted land had to be claimed by conquest from the Canaanites (Jdg.
1:3). The land was always seen as a possession and heritage given by God. This
explains also the regulations for the sabbatical year and the year of jubilee (Lev.
25) providing for the restoration of property and slaves, for the land is Yahweh’s
property and is therefore subject to his claims and regulations.
3. The terms used in the OT to express these ideas are gordi, lot; yara§, to possess;
and especially nah*/ah, possession, inheritance, heritage. The LXX renders géral
almost always by kléros. For nah*lah it uses mainly kléros, lot, portion, and
kléronomia, inheritance. yadras§ and its derivatives are represented by kléronomed
inherit, acquire, obtain, come into possession of, k/éros and kléronomia.
For the other Heb. concepts (e.g. héleg, portion, share; s°gulldh, property;
hebel, portion of ground), the LXX uses also meris, share, periousios, one’s own,
chosen, especial, schoinisma, piece of land measured by a measuring-line, an
allotted piece of land. Clearly the concept nah*/ah, inheritance, best represents the
relationship of Israel to the land given it by God, because it gives expression to the
element of having received a present, to the inalienable vocation, and abovecall to
the plan and the action in history behind it.
4. What is the difference between k/éros and kléronomia? Sometimes both terms
are used interchangeably for nah*/ah (e.g. Num. 18:23 f.; 32:18 f.; Jos. 17:4; cf.
Jdg. 2:9). However, kléros, which meant originally lot, stresses more the individual
piece of land allotted by lot, whereas k/éronomia points more to the fact of inheri-
tance with all its connotations already mentioned. A/éros may be used in the plural,
but kléronomia is never so used. k/éronomia has the richer associations in the
context of salvation history.
5. In late Judaism géral came to be used for the individual’s fate in the last day
(cf. already Isa. 57:6; Dan. 12:13), more or less in the sense of the heritage of the
righteous. The rabbis spoke of inheriting the land (cf. Ps. 37:9, 22, 29), the coming
age, future reward, the garden of Eden, and also Gehenna (—> Hell). Here we meet
the thought of rewards (SB I 829, 981; IV, 2 1116).
6. In the Qumran writings gora/, lot, assumes a central position. Here it denotes
the fate predestinated by God (1QS 2:17; 1QM 13:9), signifying either that one
belongs to God, the sons of light, the spirits of knowledge, etc., or to Belial, the
sons of darkness and its spirits. Hence it has the meaning of adherents, party (1QS
2:2, 5; 1QH 3:22, 24 f.; L1QM 1:1, 5, 11; 4:2; 13:2—-5). From this comes almost the
meaning class, rank (1QS 1:10; 2:23; CD 13:12). “To cast the lot’’ often means to
determine a person’s fate or even to judge (1QS 4:26; 1QH 3:22). When the term
nah*léh is used, it has overtones of double predestination and the eschatological
outlook of the Qumran community (1QS 4:15 ff.; 1QH 14:19; 17:15), though
sometimes it bears the OT meaning (1QM 10:15; 19:4).
An important concept for the NT background is the belief that the community
shared in the lot of the holy ones, i.e. — angels (IQS 11:7f., 1 QH3:21 f.; 11:11f.;
1QSb 4:25 f.). Angels were believed to be present in the camp of the community
(LQM 7:6; 12:1 f.; 1QSa 2:8 f.). But the elect on earth could also be called holy
ones (e.g. 1QSb 4:23) and similarly the community “‘the people of the saints of the
covenant, instructed in the laws and learned in wisdom... who have heard the
298
INHERITANCE
voice of Majesty and have seen the Angels of Holiness’ (1QM 10:10 f.; cf. Vermes,
Scrolls, 136 f.). Behind this lies the idea that the earthly community is incorporated
into the community of the angels, and has thus obtained the spiritual riches belong-
ing to the angels.
The reception of novices was made dependent on “‘the decision [lot] of the
Council of the Congregation” (1QS 6:16, cf. 18, 21). Though the word “‘lot’’ is
used, it is doubtful whether casting of lots is really meant, though this is found in
CD 13:4 and 1QS 5:3 (cf. A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning,
1966, 166 f.). Nor is it clear whether the testing of the novices was believed to reveal
how God had determined their lot in heaven. For that could be recognized by a
man’s behaviour on earth (CD 20:3 f.).
NT kléros occurs in 10 passages in the NT.
1. kléros in the lit. sense of lot. All four Gospels state that the soldiers cast lots
for Jesus’ garments at the crucifixion (Matt. 27:35; Mk. 15:24; Lk. 23:34; Jn.
19:24; cf. also Barn. 6:6). Jn. sees it explicitly as a fulfilment of Ps. 22:18 [21:19]
(“they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots’’). It
represents the ultimate degradation of a human being. The Psalm is an expression
of desolation (on its significance in connection with Jesus’ passion — God, art. theos
NT 6 (d)). But in it the Psalmist recognizes that it is God who is in control and who
alone can give help: “But thou, O Lord, be not far off! O thou my help, hasten
to my aid”’ (Ps. 22:19). The Gospel accounts of the passion see God himself behind
the events and Jesus as the one who fulfils the descriptions of the Psalmist.
Acts 1:26 records that the final decision as to which of the two candidates,
Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, or Matthias, should fill Judas’
place among the twelve — apostles, was determined by lot. Both candidates met
the necessary qualifications of being a member of the company who had followed
Jesus throughout his earthly ministry and of being a witness of Jesus’ resurrection
(Acts 1:21 f.). The lots were cast following the prayer: ‘““Lord, who knowest the
hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place
in this ministry [diakonia] and apostleship [apostolé] from which Judas turned
aside to go to his own place” (Acts 1:24 f.). Earlier Judas is referred to as having
been “numbered among us, and was allotted his share [k/éros] in this ministry
[diakonia]” (v. 17). Here k/éros is used in its other main sense. There is a profound
sense of divine overruling throughout. The vb. used in Acts | : 26, edokan (lit. ‘‘they
gave’ lots) rather than the expected ebalon (‘‘they cast’), has given rise to the
suggestion that the matter was put to a vote (cf. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake,
eds., The Beginnings of Christianity, | 1V, 1933, 15). This seems to be the interpre-
tation of the Western text of Acts. But ‘‘to give a lot” is a Heb. idiom (F. F. Bruce,
The Acts of the Apostles, 1952?, 80). E. Haenchen points out that in this procedure
“The human factor is excluded: it is God who is choosing” (The Acts of the Apostles,
1971, 162). On the procedure cf. 1 Sam. 14:41 LXX; 1 Chron. 26:14; Prov. 16:33;
SB II 596.
kléroo occurs once in the NT. Lit. it means to appoint by lot. It occurs in Eph.
1:11 in the clause en ho eklérothémen (lit. “in whom our lot is cast’, cf. Arndt, 436).
The RV, however, takes the vb. in the sense of 2 below: “in whom we were made a
heritage, having been foreordained, according to the purpose of him who worketh
299
INHERITANCE
all things after the counsel of his will’’. proskléro6 means allot, assign, and in the
pass. to be attached to, join. It is in this latter sense that it is used in Acts 17:4, where
it has lost its etymological overtones.
2. kléros and kléronomia as inheritance. With the meaning share, inheritance,
kléros is found 4 times in the NT. kléronomia is found 14 times; kléronomos, heir,
15; synkléronomos, fellow heir, 4; kléronomeo, inherit, 18 times; and kataklérono-
meo, give as an inheritance, once. The words occur in the Synoptic Gospels, the
Pauline Epistles, 1 Pet., frequently in Heb., and once in Rev. Apart from k/léros
in the sense of lot, the whole group is absent from the Johannine writings. In Lk.
12:13 kléronomia has the basic secular sense of inheritance. Elsewhere (and perhaps
even here) it has theological overtones influenced by the OT. katakléronome6 occurs
in Paul’s review at Pisidian Antioch of salvation history in his reference to the seven
Canaanite nations whose land God gave Israel as an inheritance (Acts 13:19; cf.
Deut. 7:1; Jos. 14:1).
(a) The concept of inheritance has soteriological and eschatological dimensions.
It is linked with God’s historical saving acts. The idea of possession of the promised
land passes beyond its first fulfilment in history to its later historical fulfilment in
Christ and beyond that to the future final fulfilment at the end of time. It is in this
way that the eschatological tendency found already in the OT is worked out. The
essential thought is that of inheriting the promise to which believers are called.
According to various different strata of NT witness, the object of this promise, the
nahlah. in the OT, is the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9; 15:50a; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5;
Matt. 25:34; Jas. 2:5). In the Beatitudes, Jesus puts side by side the promise of the
kingdom of heaven and that of inheriting the — earth (gé; Matt. 5:5; cf. 5:10).
By this he indicated that the promised land of the OT is replaced by the all-embrac-
ing concept of the + kingdom of God. This kingdom embraces all those promises
the fulfilment of which is yet future. This is shown when we look at the other things
promised as an inheritance in the NT: eternal life (Matt. 19:29; Lk. 18:18; Tit.
3:7); salvation (Heb. 1:14); the imperishable (order) (1 Cor. 15:50b); an inheri-
tance, imperishable, undefiled, unfading, kept in heaven (1 Pet. 1:4); the >
blessing (Heb. 12:17; 1 Pet. 3:9); the — promises (Heb. 6:12; 10:36); or as in
Rev. 21:7 “these things” (RV, NEB “all this’’). In these statements OT thought is
retained and at the same time transformed (Rom. 4:13 ff.; Heb. 6:17; cf. Acts 7:5;
13:19).
(b) This inheritance, however, is not merely future. It can be recognized already
now in faith (Eph. 1:18). According to Heb. 11:7, — Noah inherited the righteous-
ness which comes by faith. In Eph. 1:11—14 we are told that “‘we have been given
our share in the heritage” (NEB v. 11; cf. section 1 above) and have the guarantee
of this inheritance in the Holy Spirit whom we have received. The first at least of
the Beatitudes suggests that the poor in spirit already possess the kingdom of heaven
even though its full realization, like that of the remaining Beatitudes, lies in the
future (Matt. 5:3; cf. Lk. 6:20; — Poor).
(c) The fact that salvation is future and yet present comes from our being inheri-
tors through Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:11 f.) and his death (Heb. 9:15). He who has
come and will come again, has brought us the inheritance. Indeed, he is the inherit-
ance and the kingdom (cf. the OT statements about the heritage of the Levites and
the expressions of faith in Pss.). Through him we are fellow-heirs (Rom. 8:17).
300
INHERITANCE
The parable of the tenants of the vineyard (Matt. 21:33-41 par. Mk. 12:1-12,
Lk. 20:9-19; cf. Isa. 5:1-7) shows Jesus as the heir, and introduces the OT concept
of the — remnant. Yahweh has chosen Israel as his people. It is his vineyard and
inheritance. He gave it the land, but it had been disobedient. Now there was only
a remnant. This remnant, repeatedly referred to by the prophets, is ultimately a
single individual, Jesus, the Son. But through him the remnant grows into a great
multitude of believers who are fellow-heirs. Thus the rich young ruler should
have become an heir with him of eternal life (Matt. 19:16—-30, par. Mk. 10:17-31;
Lk. 18:18-30).
Alongside the witness of the Synoptics is that of Paul who gives special promin-
ence to the connection between the promise to — Abraham and the church as the
heir in Christ. In Rom. 4:13 Paul declares that “through the righteousness of faith”’
the promise to Abraham that he should inherit the world becomes ours. In the
faith that we share in Christ we become heirs. If this depended on the — law and
not on Christ, “‘faith is made void [kekendtai]’ (Rom. 4:14 RV). He who is
Christ’s is Abraham’s offspring and so his heir (Gal. 3:29; cf. 4:1, 7; Tit. 3:7).
Heb. develops this testimony. By an oath to Abraham God promised salvation
“to the heirs of the promise’ (6:17; > Swear). They already have the future
inheritance, but only in hope (6:18). They inherit it as did Abraham “through faith
and patience” (6:12). The one who has opened the way to this promise is Jesus
(6:20). He is the son and heir (1:2, 4). The stress in Heb. is rather different from
that in Paul. The future nature of the heritage and the need to hold fast to the
promise are more strongly emphasized, but the basic concept is the same. In Heb.
11:7, just as in Paul, faith is seen as believing and acting on the word of God. It is
by this that Noah became “‘an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith”’ (cf.
Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; Gen. 15:6).
Jas. 2:5 echoes the teaching of the Synoptics. It treats the question of the heirs
of the kingdom, even though the relationship to Jesus, through whom we become
heirs, is not expressed. ‘‘Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be
rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love
him ?”’ There is a firm link between — election, — promise and inheritance through-
out the NT.
(d) Since Jesus is the heir and also the one who has given himself for us, we
cannot have this inheritance except in relation to him. This involves practical
obedience (Heb. 11:8), and demands patient endurance (Heb. 6:12). Without it
we Shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 15:50a). In his parable
of the final judgment (Matt. 25:31-46) Jesus shows how this relationship to him
involves love in our dealings with others through whom he comes to us (cf. the
parable of the Good Samaritan [Lk. 10:25—37]). Jesus’ conversation with the rich
young ruler also shows that eternal life can be inherited only in the obedience of
faith, by those who follow Jesus (Matt. 19:29; Mk. 10:29; cf. Lk. 18:29).
Because Jesus has appointed us as heirs, we are not merely fellow-heirs with him
but also joint heirs with each other (1 Pet. 3:7). This involves our relationship with
others (1 Pet. 3:9), as is shown in the two parables mentioned in the previous
paragraph and also in the one of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-35; cf.
6:15). This obedience in faith is neither work to acquire merit (as with the rabbis)
nor a burden (as the rich young ruler imagined). It is the concomitant of faith
301
INHERITANCE
which is required to possess the salvation of God and his Son (1 Jn. 5:12; 2:23; 2
Jn. 9; —> Possessions). Jesus’ call to follow him is in itself a gift of eternal life, the
kingdom of God and fellowship with him. Col. 3:24 speaks of receiving “‘the
inheritance as your reward.”’ But the passage makes it clear that this is not earned
as of right but a gift of God which is still to be appropriated. As Paul puts it in
Gal. 3:18: ““God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”
(e) Finally, the NT makes it clear that the inheritance of the promise is not only
for God’s chosen people — Israel. Through Christ the Gentiles have become fellow-
heirs with them. Paul stresses again and again that in Christ all believers without
distinction are children of God and inheritors of the promise (Gal. 3:23—29; cf.
4:30; Rom. 4:13 f.). This sharing in the inheritance by the Gentiles is clearly
expressed in Eph., Col. and Acts. In Eph. 3:6 the Gentiles are fellow-heirs in
Christ through the gospel. Eph. 1:3-14 contains an exposition of how the church
received its inheritance in Christ. He is the ground and instrument of the whole of
God’s plan of salvation [oikonomia, v. 10]. The election of all believers before
the foundation of the world is based on him (v. 4). In him they have redemption
through his blood (v. 7), standing as sons, and hence a share in the inheritance, to
the praise of his grace. The Gentiles share in it; cf. the change of “‘we’’ (v. 11 f.) to
“vou” (v. 13) and the stressed ‘“‘also’’, suggesting Paul’s identification of himself
with the Jewish people and the inclusion of Gentile believers alongside of Jewish
believers in the Ephesian church (cf. also Eph. 2:1—3:6).
According to Acts 26:15—18, Paul was commissioned by the risen Lord to open
the eyes of the Gentiles, that they may turn from darkness to light that they may
receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance (RSV “‘place’’, kléros not kléronomia)
among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ. The language perhaps recalls
that of the Qumran community with its idea of the community of the last days
sharing with the holy ones (—> angels) in light (cf. Acts 20:32; Eph. 1:18). The
“holy ones” in the Qumran texts can, however, also mean the community of the
last days, and the term “holy ones” or “saints” (hagioi) was applied to the early
church (—» Holy). However we understand this, the passage contains the revolu-
tionary thought that the Gentiles obtain a share in this “lot” through faith in Jesus
Christ. Col. 1:12 also perhaps contains another reminder of Qumran concepts.
The Gentile church in Colossae has a “‘share in the inheritance [merida tou klérou]
of the holy ones in light” (cf. 1QS 11:7, 8; but the expression is found already in
the LXX, e.g. Deut. 10:9; Num. 18:20; Ps. 15:5, where, however, k/éronomia
stands instead of k/éros). For the walk in light see Ps. 56:13 (MT 56:14); Isa. 2:5;
60:1 ff. See further E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 1951, 35 ff. On meris — meros.
OT and Qumran phraseology is found also in Acts 8:21, when John and Peter
have to deny Simon Magus “part or lot in this word”’ 1.e. the gospel. The expression
is here a formula of excommunication (E. Haenchen, op. cit., 305, who notes
formal resemblance with Deut. 12:12; 14:27; Ps. 77:37 LXX). In Acts 17:4 the
term proskléroé has become so weakened that we may accept RSV rendering,
“Some of them... joined Paul and Silas’’; yet behind this watered down linguistic
usage there is the thought that a great many of the devout Greeks and some
leading women in Thessalonica had through God obtained a share in the promised
heritage and had been placed in it. In | Pet. 5:3 the plur. k/éroi (RSV “‘your charge’’)
probably means the local church in its several parts or districts (fixed by lot?).
302
INHERITANCE
E. G. Selwyn takes it to refer to “spheres of pastoral care’? and notes a possible
allusion to Deut. 9:29 (The First Epistle of Peter, 19472, 231).
(f) We can probably best explain John’s omission to use the concept of inherit-
ance by the stress of his witness on the present nature and universality of salvation
in Christ rather than on the eschatological fulfilment of salvation history. Since he
is battling against the unbelief of the Jews, it is more important for him to stress what
the church possesses in Christ than what it is to inherit. Perhaps Rev. 21 summarizes
best what the NT has to say about the inheritance: the kingdom of God, the eternal
glory without death, suffering and sin, God himself the Father and ourselves his
sons through faith in Christ — that is the inheritance, not merely for the individual,
but also for the whole church. J. Eichler
; Lépoc (meros), part, share, portion, lot; wepic (meris),
| LE pos | :
part, portion.
CL From Sth cent. B.c. meros is found in secular Gk. with many shades of meaning.
It could be said to supersede moira, lot, portion, part, share, which though very
frequently found from Homer on, came to be confined to the power of the deities
to determine fate. Moira was, in fact, the goddess of fate. meros means a part, e.g.
of the body, a landscape, a territory, especially, in the plur., a locality, or party.
Metaphorically it means a share, a concern, a social class; in Koine Gk. also
business. It often stands in adverbial phrases with prepositions: ana meros, apo
merous, ek merous, kata meros (cf. meros ti), the meanings of which can no longer be
sharply separated with absolute certainty. We find examples of “‘one after another’,
“partly”, “‘specially’’, and “‘partially” for each of them.
bd
oT In the LXX meros represents a number of Heb. words, especially gaseh and its
cognates. Here too it means a part (h*misit, Gen. 47:24). Its commonest use is to
express locality: e.g. border (Exod. 16:35; Jos. 18:19 f.), area of land (Jos. 2:18; |
Sam. 30:14), end, edge (Jos. 13:27; 15:2). When things are being described, meros
means side (e.g. Exod. 26:26 f.; 32:15). In Prov. 17:2 it is a share in an inheritance,
and in 2 Macc. 15:20 a place.
meris also stands for several Heb. nouns, especially héleq (e.g. Gen. 14:24; 31:
14; Deut. 10:9; 12:12; 18:1, 8; 32:9; Jos. 14:4; 15:13; Pos. 50 [49]:18; 73 [72]:26;
119 [118]:57; 142 [141]:5), helgah (e.g. Gen. 33:19; 2 Sam. 2:16; 14:30), mandah (e.g.
Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:33 [23]), and m°nat (e.g. Neh. 12:44, 47; 13:10).
NT In the NT meros means a part of the body, an estate, or dress (Lk. 11:36;
15:12; Jn. 19:23), the side of a boat (Jn. 21:6), a party, e.g. of Pharisees or
Sadducees (Acts 23:6, 9). Often it denotes a district or place (Matt. 2:22; 15:21).
The meaning of “‘the lower [or lowest] parts of the earth” (Eph. 4:9) is uncertain.
It could mean Jesus’ descent among the dead in death (F. Biichsel, TDNT III
641), or his coming down to the earth (M. Dibelius, An die Epheser, HNT 12, 1953°
ad loc.). In spite of Biichsel’s impressive argument an element of uncertainty
remains.
meros means occupation or trade in Acts 19:27, and case or matter in 2 Cor.
3:10; 9:3. In the story of the feet washing, Jesus says to Peter: “If I do not wash
303
INHERITANCE/ISRAEL
you, you have no part in me” (NEB, better: “‘you are not in fellowship with me’,
Jn. 13:8). This sharing is enjoyed by the Christian, if he is a living member of the
body, the church (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:16; — Body; — Fellowship). One can also
have one’s share or place with the hypocrites and godless (Matt. 24:51; Lk. 12:46).
It depends on which group one is a member of whether one has a share in the first
resurrection and the tree of life (Rev. 20:6; 22:19) or in the lake that burns with
—» fire, the second —> death (Rev. 21:8).
meros is used adverbially in the expression apo merous (Rom. 11:25) of the
“partial hardening” (NEB) that has come upon Israel. This rendering preserves
the Gk. better than the RSV: ‘‘a hardening has come upon part of Israel’? (— Hard;
cf. also O. Glombitza, “‘Apostolische Sorge. Welche Sorge treibt den Apostel
Paulus zu den Satzen Rom. 11, 25 ff.?’, NovT 7, 1965, 312-18). apo merous means
“on some points’ (Rom. 15:15), ‘“‘in part’? (2 Cor. 1:14) and “for a while’? and
“to some degree”’ (2 Cor. 2:5) (cf. Arndt, 507). The precise shade of meaning is
determined by context. ana meros means “‘one after the other” (1 Cor. 14:27). ek
merous means “individually” (1 Cor. 12:27), and “‘in part’ (1 Cor. 13:9 f., 12),
where Paul is stressing the incomplete, fragmentary and transitory character of
—> knowledge in contrast with — love. When the perfect comes, the imperfect will
pass away (1 Cor. 13:10). en merei means “with regard to” (Col. 2:16), and kata
meros (Heb. 9:5) “point by point’.
meris means part, in the sense of a district (Acts 16:12) and share or portion in
Lk. 10:42; Acts 8:21 (cf. Deut. 12:12); 2 Cor. 6:15 (‘What accord has Christ with
Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?’’); and Col. 1:12
(— kléros, NT 2 (e)). W. Mundle
—> Covenant, — Earth, Land, World, — Israel, — Levite
(a). Arndt, 435 f., 506 f.; O. J. Baab, ‘Inheritance’, /DBII 701 ff.; E. M. Blaiklock, “‘Inheritance”’
ZPEB III 277 ff.; A. M. Brown, The Concept of Inheritance in the Old Testament (Dissertation,
Columbia, New York) 1965; F. Biichsel, kato, TDNT III 640 ff.; W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the
Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, 1974; J. Herrmann and W. Foerster,
kléros, TDNT III 758-85; J. D. Hester, ‘““The ‘Heir’ and Heilsgeschichte: A Study of Gal. 4, 1 ff.’’,
in Oikonomia. Festschrift O. Cullmann, 1967, 118-25; and Paul’s Concept of Inheritance, SJT Occa-
sional Papers, 9, 1968; M. Noth, The Laws of the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966; W. Pesch,
‘Inheritance’, EBT II 394-98; G. von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 1962, 296-305; and
“The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land’’, in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays,
1966, 79-93; J. Schneider, meros, TDNT IV 594-98.
(b). J. Benzinger, Hebrdische Archdologie, 1927°, 392 ff.; P. Diepold, Israels Land BWANT 95,
1972; F. Dreyfus, ‘“‘Le theme de I’héritage dans l’Ancien Testament’’, Revue des Sciences Philo-
sophiques et Théologiques 42, 1958, 3-49; G. Hoélscher, Geschichte der israelitischen und jiidischen
Religion, 1922; G. Lanczkowski, “‘Los”, RGG? IV 451; F. Notscher, Biblische Altertumskunde,
1940, 133 ff.; SB I 829; II 596; III 625; H. H. Schmid, ydadras, THAT I 778-81.
Israel, Jew, Hebrew, Jacob, Judah
[lopagh "Ia payd (Israel), Israel; Io pandityc ([sraélités), Israelite ;
OE |’ Jovdaiocg Uloudaios), Jew ;’Iovdaixd@c Uloudaikés), Jewish;
‘EBpaioc (Hebraios), Hebrew (noun); ‘Efpaic (Hebrais), Hebrew (fem. adj.).
OT 1. Etymology and First Occurrence. The name Israel (Heb. yisra’él) is formed
from the noun ’é/ (God) and a verbal predicate. An explanation of it is given in
304
ISRAEL
Gen. 32:28 in the context of the story of Jacob (— Jakob) wrestling with God:
‘“Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with
God and with men, and have prevailed”’ (cf. Hos. 12:4). Hence, the name has been
interpreted to mean He who strives with God, the vb. being sarar, to rule, or sarah,
contend, fight. This interpretation seems to be supported by the story. However,
elsewhere ’é/ is never the object in proper names, but is always the subject. Hence,
the interpretation God strives has also been put forward. ’é/ is a generic name for
—»> God in Heb., as contrasted with the proper name Yahweh. (For further discus-
sion of suggested explanations see G. A. Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the
Old Testament, 1946, 22-28.)
For the personal history of Israel — Jakob. Israel was used as a personal name
(e.g. Gen. 50:2; Exod. 1:1; 1 Chron. 1:34). But it was also used as a tribal and
national name: “‘the sons of Israel’ (Lev. 1:2; Jdg. 2:4); “the — house of Israel”
(Exod. 40:38; 1 Sam. 7:2; Isa. 46:3), a term specifically applied to the northern
kingdom (1 Ki. 12:21; Hos. 5:1; Amos 5:1; Mic. 1:5), but which was also used as
a title of honour for the southern kingdom (Isa. 5:7; Jer. 10:1) (cf. Koehler-
Baumgartner, 407 f.). The earliest external reference to the Israelites outside the
OT occurs in an inscription on a pillar set up by Merneptah, king of Egypt, c. 1220
B.C., to celebrate his victories. In it he boasts: “‘Israel lies desolate; its seed is no
more” (cf. D. Winton Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times, 1958,
139, see also plate 8; text also in ANET, 376 ff.). In the opinion of C. Virolleaud,
Israel occurs as a personal name at Ugarit (Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit, V, 1965,
69, 3).
Judah (Heb. y*hiidah) occurs as a geographical term to denote the mountainous
desert region south of Jerusalem (Jos. 20:7; 21:11; Jdg. 1:16; Ps. 63:1). The tribe
which settled there bore the name of Judah, the son of Jacob and Leah (Gen. 29:35).
The precise etymology is uncertain, though Gen. 29:35 suggests a link with yadah,
praise, in Leah’s remark on the birth of her son, “‘“This time I will praise the Lord’ ;
therefore she called his name Judah.” The three first root letters (yhw) could con-
tain the divine name. The Heb. words y*hiidi and y*hidit (fem.), Judaean, and the
Gk. Joudaios, Jewish, Jew and Joudaia, Judea refer particularly to the place of
origin.
Hebrew (Heb. ‘ibri; Gk. Hebraios) is an old word of uncertain meaning. The
Hebrews no doubt belong linguistically and in reality to the Habiru people who
are frequently mentioned in Babylonian, Ugaritic and Egyptian texts of the mid
2nd cent. Like the Accadian Khabiru and the Egyptian root ‘pr, the biblical word
is a legal term. It denoted people of equal social standing without regard to their
ethnic origins (their personal names derive from a variety of linguistic areas), who,
not having a permanent home or possessions, entered the service of the settled
population on a contractual basis (servants in Egypt, | Sam. 14:21). In closely
knit groups, forerunners of the tribes, these nomadic shepherds penetrated the
arable land. The native Canaanites perhaps called them the ‘éber people, the
“‘outlanders”’ (e.g. Gen. 14:13), because they had come from ‘éber, from the (land)
beyond, i.e. from the eastern and southern steppes. Hence, the word Hebrew was
used by other peoples in the old stories sometimes in a derogatory manner, some-
times by Israel in dealings with foreigners in a self-deprecating manner (Gen. 40:15;
43:32: Exod. 1:15-19; 2:11-13; 3:18, God of the Hebrews; 1 Sam. 4:6, 9; 13:3,
305
ISRAEL
19; 29:3). Certain passages are sometimes taken to imply that the term Hebrew
was used for a dependent, economically weak people, a group contrasting with
those in Israel who were free (Exod. 21:2; Deut. 15:12; Jer. 34:9, 14).
2. Israel and Judah in the Course of History. (a) Early history. After the occupa-
tion of the land by the house of Joseph the small band of tribes (the sons of Leah ?)
expanded imto a league of twelve tribes (— People, art. phy/é), a cultic, non-political
community of those whom the God of Israel had chosen (Jos. 24). Under the
pressure exerted by the Philistines, the defence forces of the individual tribes were
no longer sufficient. Saul, having been elected king (1 Sam. 9-12), demanded
military service, united the tribes politically (at least in the north), and thereby
founded a state to which was transferred the name of the sacral twelve tribe league,
Israel. This double basis in religion and politics set up at the very outset a tension
which was to run through and determine Israel’s history.
Israel, the northern state, exercised autonomy in religion and politics for a good
200 years after David’s united kingdom was split following the death of Solomon.
The God of Israel was worshipped at the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan. In 733
and 722 Assyria defeated Israel (cf. 2 Ki. 15-17). (Israel was also called Ephraim
by the contemporary prophets, e.g. Isa. 7:1-9, after the central region associated
with the name of the younger of the two sons of Joseph [Gen. 40:50 ff.]. Ephraim
and Manasseh were counted as tribes equal with the tribes descended from the
sons of Jacob.) As the result of deportations and the mingling of the remainder of
the inhabitants with newly settled people (which had the express intention of pro-
ducing a cultural and religious syncretism) there arose the Assyrian province of
Samaria (— Samaritan).
Judah, the kingdom which David had created from the southern tribes, survived
the northern kingdom by about one and a half centuries, partly no doubt on account
of its dynastic basis and its more skilful politics. Under Babylonian overlordship
things went much better for Judah than formerly for the northern kingdom under
Assyria. Thus under the Persians the division of Judah could be reversed.
The southern kingdom received important theological support. Isaiah, con-
tinuing the line of earlier court prophets, glorified the —-> Davidic dynasty in
Zion. By taking over the name Israel for the southern kingdom after the fall of the
northern kingdom, he defined theological hopes in accordance with actual political
circumstances. The sphere of salvation was narrowed down to the remnant, Judah.
At the same time, the state of Judah acquired a new worth through the old name
with its traditional associations (cf. Isa. 24—28).
By contrast with this Zionism with its accent on Judah’s present, Jeremiah
presented a theology of dispersion which was open to God’s future. He retained
the name Israel for the northern kingdom which had already been destroyed a
century ago. Without prejudice to Josiah’s attempt to restore the state of Israel
(2 Ki. 23), Jeremiah proclaimed that the old Israel was finished. Nevertheless,
God would one day recreate from it his people. They would be a community
which, as in olden times so now in the end-time, would once again be stateless
(cf. 3:11 ff.; 31; 37:7 ff.). On the pattern of the time of — Moses, God would draw
up a new > covenant with them, this time writing the commandments in their
hearts (Jer. 31 :31—34). These hopes for Israel meant, however, that Jeremiah had to
announce judgment and destruction for the state of Judah which he loved and for
306
ISRAEL
which he pleaded before God (Jer. 14 ff.). The human and political defences had to
fall to make room for God’s new creation.
(b) Israel before God in prophetic theology. God’s relationship to Israel is
expressed in a variety of metaphors: God is — father, — king, saviour (— Redemp-
tion), guardian, refuge, comforter, dew. Correspondingly, Israel is a — son, bride,
wife (> Woman), — possession, vineyard, and — vine. These mostly personal terms
indicate a relationship of partnership. God lets his beloved son know both what he
does for him and what he requires of him (Deut. 10:12; also Mic. 6:8). Through
such instruction, which is a wider concept than either —- commandment or —
law, Israel became the people that dwelt alone (Num. 23:9). It was distinguished
and separated from all other peoples (Deut. 4:5—10). In the holy land of Israel this
holy people was to live for the holy God in holiness (Lev. 11:44 f.; 19:2; 20:26;
—» Holy). Israel’s — election was at the same time a commission. Although the
least significant of the peoples (Deut. 7:7), Israel still had to be for them a prince
and a light, a witness to God by his very existence (Isa. 43:8 ff.). Election meant
loneliness, difference, renunciation, readiness to — suffer (Isa. 52:13-53:12), and
a heavy — burden.
Israel continually ran the risk of falling back into Canaanite cults, succumbing
to the temptations of her environment, and of wanting to be like the other peoples.
This meant that the relationship of trust could be damaged from the human side,
but not destroyed. For the covenant with Israel remained irrevocable for God’s
sake. To make this fact certain beyond all doubt, use was made of concepts taken
from the realm of law: God will not abandon his legal claim on Israel (Amos 9:1 ff.);
nor will he publish a bill of — divorce (Isa. 50:1). Lest his name be blasphemed
among the heathen for faithlessness, God remained true to the oath which he
swore to the fathers (Ezek. 20:9, 14, 22; Deut. 7:8). Even — judgment is a sign
of his faithfulness. Through God’s servants the — prophets of Israel (Ezek. 38:17)
who intercede to the point of self-immolation (Exod. 32:32; Jer. 30f.), Israel 1s
warned, and threatened and comforted. But in all this we have only different forms
of the same invitation to repentance. God’s own faithfulness to the covenant
makes it possible for Israel to be purified and the covenant relationship renewed.
The hope of the restoration of the whole of Israel does not rest on Israel’s righteous-
ness but on God’s love to the fathers (Exod. 32:11-14; Deut. 9:5), and his freedom
which chose Israel contrary to all expectations (Ezek. 16:59-63).
(c) The struggle for Israel in the post-exilic period. Shortly after the return of the
exiles from Babylon the prophets announced a turning point in the coming of
salvation (cf. Hag. 2:20-23; Zech. 6:9-15). But three generations later Ezra and
Nehemiah saw in these semi-political dreams a danger to Israel’s continued
existence. The latter left to the Persians the management of political relations and
concentrated on the internal building up of the covenant community in Jeremiah’s
sense on the basis of Holy Scripture. What had hitherto been the privilege of the
priests now became a common possession (cf. Neh. 8).
From the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.c.) onwards Judaism lived
under the influence of the pervading Hel. culture. However, as soon as adaptation
to the environment threatened to lead to the abandonment of their particularity,
resistance movements arose, principally on religious grounds. The successful
Maccabean rebellion which broke out in 168 B.c. led once again, under the
307
ISRAEL
Hasmoneans, to a compromise between self-consciousness and openness to the
environment. This is shown by the coins with their bilingual inscriptions.
In the following period, after Pompey had captured Jerusalem and reduced the
area (63 B.C.) the half-Jew Herod (37-4 B.c.; cf. Josephus, Ant. 14, 9, 2), reigned as
king by favour of Rome, and procurators exploited and provoked the Jews. The
distinction between the Jews and the surrounding nations became progressively
sharper, until under the leadership of the Zealots there occurred a series of bloody
conflicts with the Romans and the friends of Rome. This is illustrated by the
inscriptions on the coins of the period: the revolutionary coinage of the years 66-70
and 132-135, partly overstampings of Roman coins, are inscribed in the old Heb.
script as an indication of the return of Israel’s original times in the present end-
times. The inscriptions are more programmes than descriptions of reality: “Shekel
of Israel’’, “Salvation of Zion’’, ““For the freedom of Jerusalem’’, “First year of the
salvation of Israel’’, “Second year of the freedom of Israel’’. The Roman inscrip-
tion, however, runs: “Judaea capta” (“Conquered Judah’’). (On the coins of the
period see G. L. Archer, “Coins”, ZPEB I 901-11; A. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish
Coins, 1947?; and Jsrael’s History in Coins from the Maccabees to the Roman
Conquest, 1953; L. Kadman et al., The Dating and Meaning of Ancient Jewish Coins,
1958; E. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars, 1955; — Possessions: Coins in the Bible
and Theological Issues.)
After the exterminations of Jews of the dispersion under Trajan (A.D. 98-117)
and the failure of the messiah Simon Bar Kokhba (“‘son of a star’’, cf. Num. 24:17)
in A.D. 132, at the peak of the conflict, not only were those who remained faithful
to the instruction to be exterminated, but the name of the people was to be obliter-
ated. Hadrian decreed that Jerusalem should be a Roman colony to be known as
Aelia Capitolina (after himself and Jupiter) and the land Syria Palaestina (Land of
the Philistines).
Nevertheless, even under the most difficult conditions, remnant Jewish com-
munities repeatedly migrated back. At first they even managed to maintain a
certain cultural standing, as the Palestinian Talmud and the ruins of synagogues
bear witness. Their overlords changed: Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks and
British came and went. In 1948, under the pressure of the terrible situation of the
Jews and with the approval of world public opinion, there arose once again a state
with the ancient name of Israel.
NT The inter-Testamental period and the NT era witnessed an intense struggle
over the identity of the true Israel in the face of foreign rule, the competing
groups within Judaism and the emergence of the church.
1. Israel and its Environment. Despite the many strata within it, Judaism was a
relatively unified whole compared with the other peoples. As bearers of revelation
in the struggle against the heathen even the early Jesus-groups recognized them-
selves as naturally on the side of Israel, or rather as belonging to Israel. Hence, the
rise of the Christian church must be seen against the background of the competing
groups within Judaism which were concerned with the identity and destiny of Israel.
(a) Israel’s Hel. environment, with its striving for cultural unity, exercised on
Judaism, especially in the dispersion, a powerful attraction. In good times it was
possible to take over not only the language but also many Hel. manners, so long
308
ISRAEL
as they were not connected with a pagan cult and therefore incompatible with
Jewish principles. This openness and recognition of the nations was expressed
theologically in the acceptance of the first stages of a messianic humanity among
them, “‘sons of + Noah” (who kept the principal commandments of Gen. 9:4; cf.
Acts 15:28 ff.; Sanh. 56a—b) and the pious among the nations (Hullin 92a; Baba
Kamma 38a). Through mission which had its theological roots in the universal
claim of the one God who desires the salvation of all the nations (cf. the Songs of
the Servant of Yahweh in Isa. 41 f. and 49), the tension between Israel and the
nations was removed by the anticipation of the reunion expected in the end-time
(Pesahim 87b; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28).
Thus post-exilic Judaism became a missionary religion, ready to accept anyone
who confessed the one God of Israel (— One, art. heis). Success was great, espe-
cially among women who were not — circumcised but only baptized. About one in
ten of the inhabitants of the Hel. Mediterranean world was a Jew, not by birth
but by belief (cf. Sib. 3, 271; 1 Macc. 15:22 f.; Philo, Flacc. 45 f.; Leg.Gai. 281-283;
Josephus, War 2, 19, 2; Ant. 14, 7, 2; Acts 2:9-11).
But this very openness, which was what the best among the nations found attrac-
tive about Judaism, also gave rise to hatred and persecutions. In times of crisis
the position of Jews before the law worsened and enmity led to pogroms (like the
persecutions under Trajan, A.D. 115-117). Jews were faced with the choice either of
giving up their Jewishness and adopting the pagan gods and the cult of the emperor,
or of renouncing the privilege of cultural and political equality. The result was that
those who remained faithful to their community withdrew into a kind of ghetto
existence, involving a separation that was neither national nor racial but completely
religious in character. In order not to further the worship of idols, dealings with
pagans were limited or, as in the 18 regulations which were introduced by the
Shammaites before the rebellion of A.D. 66 (Shabbath 17a—b), almost completely
prevented. As the theology of the Talmud shows, Pharisaism, based on the OT,
made the whole of Israel immune to the damaging influences of Hel. anti-Jewish
culture and gave it a self-consciousness which supplied the power to survive as a
community for thousands of years amid the hatred and persecution of a hostile
environment.
(b) The use of the terms relating to the Jews was determined by these conflicts.
The word Hebrew (noun and adj.) has the most neutral meaning. It denotes in
particular the language and the script, and then also the people who use them. In
worship the Bible was read sentence by sentence in the Heb. original and then
translated into current Aram. in the form of the Targums. Where it is used without
any special significance, Hebrew frequently means the current Aramaic (Josephus
Ant. 2, 13, 1; cf. also Hebrais the Hebrew [language], Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14;
Hebraisti, in Hebrew, Jn. 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Rev. 9:11; 16:16). In place of
the ancient Heb. characters square chatacters were employed (even among the
copyists of sacred texts), which developed out of the Aram. state script. The ancient
Heb. script, used for the inscriptions on revolutionary coinage, was expressly
rejected by Pharisaic teachers. Especially when used by foreigners the word Hebrew
can serve to denote the land (Tacitus, Histories 5,5) and its people (Test. Jos. 12:2 f.;
13:3; Jub. 47:5 f.). Since language, education and the structure of theology are
largely determined by the fact of belonging to a particular cultural sphere, the word
309
ISRAEL
of differentiation (cf. Acts 6:1) could sometimes in the conflict acquire an apolo-
getic or a polemical tone. Paul emphasized in 2 Cor. 11:22 and Phil. 3:5 his
Heb.-speaking origins and affiliations as something positive. In the sayings about
Hebrews in the gnostic Gospel of Philip (especially | and 46) everything Hebrew is
devalued as an obsolete preliminary to true faith.
Judah, Jew, Jewish and Judaism are more terms with a political and sociological
colouring. They denote in the first instance membership of the nation (Tacitus,
Histories, 5, 5), but then also people who turn to Judaism (Dio Cass., 37, 17) and
live according to Jewish customs (cf. Joudaikos, Jewish in Tit. 1:14, of myths; with
the adv. Joudaikos and vb. ioudaizo, live as a Jew, Gal. 2:14). To this context
belongs the noun first coined by the LXX, Joudaismos, Judaism, as a way of life
and faith (Gal. 1:13 f.; cf. 2 Macc. 2:21; 8:1; 14:38; 4 Macc. 4:26; Arndt, 380).
This usage was taken over by the Jews themselves, especially in dealings with
foreigners (Elephantine Papyri; 1 Macc. 3:34; 8:23 ff.; Tob. 1:18). But Jew also
occurs as a Self-designation on the coins of the Hasmonean period, in Philo and
Josephus. In the NT it is used of individuals and in the plur. of groups, occurring
some 194 times with almost every shade of meaning, of which 79 instances are in
Acts, especially from ch. 13 on, 71 in Jn., 24 in Paul, but only 11 in the Synoptic
Gospels (see 2 (e) below). Occasionally, especially in exegetical contexts, the word
has a respectful sense (Megillah 12b—13a; Midrash Est. 2:5[93a]; Sib. 5, 249). But
the word Jew was often used by Gentiles as a contemptuous term of abuse (Mid-
rash Lam. 1:11[55a]). The Gentile world did not understand the peculiarity and
necessary separation of the Jewish people (Ad.Est. 13:12 ff. [LXX after 4:17]).
Because they could not take part in the Gentile cults and social life, they were
regarded as godless, haters of foreigners, and even as haters of men in general
(3 Macc. 3:4 ff.; Josephus, Ap. 2, 121-124, 145-150; Megillah 13b; Midrash Est.
3:8[95b], a warning against Jews; BGU 1079). Alexandrian writers, in particular,
spread horrific tales about the history and worship of the Jews which were readily
believed and copied (Manetho, Chairemon, Lysimachus, Apion; cf. Josephus,
Ap. 1, 219-2, 150; Tacitus, Histories, 3-5; Ann. 2, 85). Contempt for Judaism
(Cicero, Pro Flacco, 28; Pliny, Nat.Hist. 13, 4; Juvenal, Satires 14, 96-106) also
resulted in hatred which worked itself out in bloody persecution (Philo, Flacc.
41-96; Leg.Gai. 120-139).
Intensified by such anti-Jewish attitudes on the part of others, Judaism’s con-
sciousness of itself as Israel developed. This is the most pregnant of the theological
concepts consistently used within the community. It occurs frequently in the NT
(68 times), most often in Paul (17 times, of which 11 are in Rom.), then 12 in Matt.,
12 in Lk. and 15 in Acts, rarely in Mk. and Jn. (twice and 4 times respectively).
Israélités occurs 5 times in Acts (always as a form of address; cf. 2:22; 3:12; 5:35;
13:16; 21:28), 3 times in Paul (Rom. 9:4; 11:1; 2 Cor. 11:22) and once in Jn.
(1.47). Each time it refers to Jews as members of the people of God. The world was
created for Israel’s sake (2 Esd. 7:11; Gen. R. 12[8d]). Israel is God’s possession
(Aboth 6:10) and the first-born (Pss.Sol. 18:4). It owes its special character solely
to the gift of instruction (Exod. R. 30[89d]). Even if Israel is despised in this world
(Lev. R. 32[122a]), suffering is itself a sign of the love of God (Pss.Sol. 18:4;
Midrash Cant. 1:5[87b]) who is with them even in dispersion (Megillah 29a). God
stands by his promises (Makkoth 24a-b). He will gather all those who have been
310
ISRAEL
scattered (Eth.Enoch 90:33; Test. Jos. 19 f.; Eighteen Benedictions, especially the
10th request; for text — Prayer, art. proseuchomai OT 5). They will possess the land
(Matt. 5:5; — Inheritance), and all Israel has a share in the world to come (Sanhed-
rin 11:1).
2. The Struggle over Israel within Judaism. (a) Israel in the Hel. period. Post-
exilic Judaism was divided geographically between the homeland and the dispersion.
Parallel with this was the cultural division between Hebrews and Hellenists. But
there were also Jews of the dispersion who emphasized their connection with the
Heb. (or Aram.) language and culture and separated themselves from Jews who
were more open towards Hel. culture. There were synagogues of the Hebrews in
Rome and Corinth (cf. also Trypho in Justin, Dial. |, 3). On the other hand, there
were in Jerusalem Jewish groups who in language and perhaps also in customs
were Hellenists (2 Macc. 4:13; Acts 6:1; 9:29).
Those who lived in Israel retained close links with those who lived in the dis-
persion. Jerusalem was supported materially by the latter in the form of the temple
tax (cf. the alms for Jerusalem in 2 Cor. 8 f.), while remaining itself a religious focal
point with its pilgrim festivals and regular embassies sent out to Jewish communi-
ties. However, there was no common political action, either during the rebellions
in Israel or the persecutions in the dispersion.
From the sociological point of view Israel was divided into several classes:
priests, Levites, Israelites, proselytes (mostly of equal standing with the Israelites
[cf. CD 14:3-6]), subordinate temple slaves and the offspring of illegitimate
marriages (Ezr. 8:20; TJ Horayoth 3:5; Yebamoth 8:5). However, because the
question of how Israel could continue to exist before God in this period was inter-
preted in a variety of ways, there arose groups which all maintained that they were
the true community (e.g. Sadducees, baptists, apocalyptists, Pharisees, and Zealots).
Membership of these groups no longer depended on origin but on the decision of
the individual to accept a particular doctrinal opinion. The boundaries of the parties
were fluid, and it was possible to transfer from one to another. Thus Josephus tried
different groups (Life 10 ff.), and disciples of John transferred their allegiance to the
Jesus group (Jn. 1:38—40).
These groups were themselves further divided into sub-groups. Thus, within the
Pharisees there was a Zealot wing, hostile to foreigners, and a missionary wing
friendly towards Rome (the parties of Shammai and Hillel; cf. Shabbath 31a).
Similar splits arose also among the followers of Jesus (Gal. 1 f.; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4;
2 Cor. 11).
The idea of election, the continued existence of Israel and the formulation of
instruction in purity were hammered out in continuous debate over points of
doctrine and constant conflict. The passion with which the struggle for Israel’s
reality was fought is a sign of the vitality of the prophetic spirit in this period.
(b) Polemic. The course of this conflict was bitter. It was of the kind that could
only come about among brothers disputing a common heritage. The fight had been
going on for a long time according to rules handed down in the different schools
before the Jesus movement arose and entered the debate.
The methods of polemic were various. Opponents were denounced in forthright
language, as can be seen by the use in the NT of terms like hypocrite (Matt. 23:13;
cf. Ass.Mos. 7) and generation of vipers (1QH 3:12-18; Matt. 3:7). Wholesale
311
ISRAEL
appeal was made to history, as when Paul saw the behaviour of the Jews, “who
killed ...the Lord Jesus”, as typical of their treatment of the prophets (1 Thess.
2:14f.). An opponent’s positive points could be assertively transformed into
negatives (cf. the sons of darkness, 1QS 1:10; 1QM 1:1; the law in Paul, Gal 3:10-
13; Rom. 4:13 ff.; the devil and lies instead of God and truth, 1QS 2:4f.; 1QM
l:1; CD6:1; 1QH5:26f.; 7:12; 1QpHab 10:9 f.; Jn. 8:41-44; Rev. 3:9). Cf.
also Paul’s interpretation of current Jewish attitudes in the light of the Scriptures in
2 Cor. 3:4-18 and Gal. 4:21-31. Such polemic had the air of prophetic denuncia-
tion: Israel is stubborn (CD 1:14 quoting Hos. 4:16) and godless (Test.Lev. 14:4).
God has hidden his face from Israel (CD 1:3). In the process Judah, in particular,
became a negative concept (CD 4:3; 4:11; 8:3, the princes of Judah have become
like those who remove the bounds, quoting Hos. 5:10). This exegesis was also
applied to disloyal members of the community (CD 19:26 f.), so that the speakers
sound almost like Gentile opponents of Judaism. In line with this, Paul, the
missionary to the Gentiles, took up the arguments of the Gentile-Jewish polemic
(1 Thess. 2:14-16). We meet the sharpest form of the polemic in the Johannine
writings, which in their generalizing usage seem to separate themselves entirely
from the Jews.
Jewish writing remains so polemically involved that dangerous misunderstandings
are unavoidable, where the different sides are considered in isolation. After the
destruction of the temple feelings were so intense that opposing positions were
treated as non-existent. Thus the Talmud is almost completely silent about its
opponents. The last step is legal separation through the introduction of the petition
on heretics into the Eighteen Benedictions: ‘‘May the Nazarenes and heretics disap-
pear in a moment; they shall be erased from the book of life and not be written
with the faithful’? (cf. Berakoth 28b—29a). This legal act of formal exclusion is
presupposed in Jn. 9:22 and 12:42.
(c) The remnant and Israel as a whole. The positive side of such polemic was an
apologetic presentation of one’s own position. Each individual group relied on the
fact that it was the separated — remnant of Israel which would lead to the escha-
tological community of the saved. A sign of this is the frequent use in these contexts
of the prep. “out of” (Heb. min, “‘from’’, in the sense of separation from something;
e.g. a plant root to spring from Israel, CD 1:7; raised from Aaron, from Israel,
CD 6:2 f.; those few who have departed, CD 8:16, 40). The self-consciousness
arising from this separation expresses itself in such self-designations as “‘the house
of truth’, “house of holiness’’, “chouse of steadfastness’ (1QS 5:5 f.; 8:5-9; 9:5;
CD 3:19).
It is striking, however, that everyone refrains from simply identifying his group
with the eschatological total-Israel. Thus 1 Cor. 10:18 lacks a corresponding
“Israel according to the spirit’’. The nearest approach to this is the ““community of
the new covenant”’ (1QpHab 2:3; CD 6:19; 8:21; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6;
Lk. 22:20). Even if primarily one’s own group is intended, an open attitude towards
a future gathered Israel is retained (1QSa 2:12). Separation from Israel is election
for Israel (QS 5:5 f.; 8:5; 9:5; Test. 8:2). The community of the remnant realizes
its commission to call the entire people to repentance. The natural way of belonging
to Israel by descent (the child of a Jewish mother is a Jew) enters into tension with
being a Jew through obedience (which particularly in the case of men demands a
312
ISRAEL
decision to learn and to fulfil the commandments). This was never devalued but
remained a basic tenet. The goal was an eschatological community in a renewed
form, as it was already foreshadowed in the present in the groups and as the
community at Sinai represented all future communities which are already included
in it (Deut. 29:15; cf. Pesahim 10:5). The community of the remnant is a — light
for the whole community (Test.Lev. 14:3; cf. Matt. 5:14). For their sakes the
whole of Israel will be saved in the end (Test.Sim. 6:2, 5; 7:2; Test.Ben. 10:11; cf.
Rom. 11:26; Sanhedrin 11:1). The clearest expression of hope for the whole of
Israel occurs in prayers which frequently conclude with a reference to the whole of
Israel (Gal. 6:16; Eighteen Benedictions; Berakoth 60b; Shabbath 12b; the Ahabah
spoken before the Shema; and often in the canticle Yigdal). The remnant of the
elect in the NT also hoped for the salvation and the re-establishment of Israel as
one people (Mk. 13:27; Lk. 24:21; Acts 1:6). The expected judgment will be
carried out through the twelve disciples, whose — number indicates the totality of
Israel (Matt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30).
Out of this belonging together in the hope of Israel on the basis of common
Scriptures there resulted a mutual sense of responsibility in every conflict, just as
the prophet was the accuser and intercessor at one and the same time and took his
people’s sufferings on himself. Internal Jewish polemic followed directly from the
affirmation of Israel; it sought the realization of the complete Israel.
(d) The Messiah and Israel. All the groups were united in the belief that Israel’s
hope would be realized in individual figures who would usher in the eschatological
salvation. It was in the time of most extreme need that people hoped that God would
make himself known to them, and lead them out of their obscurity and ambiguity.
All these many attempts at messianic realization found people ready to believe in
them, and all ended in apparent catastrophe: from the Teacher of Righteousness
at Qumran (Num. 24:17; the star from Jacob applied to the Teacher, CD 7:18 f.),
from John and Jesus via the messianic pretenders reported by Josephus (War 2, 4,
1-3), to the Zealot leaders (Josephus, War 5, 1, 1-2) and Bar Kokhba. Only two
groups survived the catastrophe: the — Pharisees, from whose tradition Rabbi
Johanan ben Zakkai excluded all messianic or Zealot tendencies at Jamnia (A.D.
70); and the Jewish believers in Jesus who stressed their eschatological, messianic
beliefs over against the Pharisees. The messianic belief of the earliest stratum of
NT tradition can, therefore, be considered representative of a thoroughly Jewish
outlook at the time of the second temple.
Each group took and applied key statements from the Jewish scripture to the
person who for them represented Israel. This representative is the elect one among
the community of the elect, the righteous one among the righteous, the son among
the sons, the servant among the servants (Isa. 53), who takes Israel’s suffering
on himself. The Son of man, the figure of judgment representing the people of
Israel in Dan. 7:13 (~ Son of God) was now referred to the messiah. As God
constantly speaks to Israel, he also speaks to the Christ. As Israel is enabled in a
unique way to hear and to obey, the Christ is also (Jn. 5:19, 36; Matt. 5:17; 11:27).
Terms can therefore also be applied to him which in the Heb. Scriptures denoted
Israel; e.g. the vineyard, the vine (Jer. 2:21; Ps. 80:8 f.; 2 Esd. 5:23; Jn. 15:1-8),
the corner stone (Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10f.; Lk. 20:17; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20;
1 Pet. 2:6-8; cf. Ps. 118:22 ff.; — Rock); the dove, metaphor for Israel (Ps. 68:13;
313
ISRAEL
2 Esd. 5:26; — Bird), descends on Jesus at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mk. 1:10;
Lk. 3:22).
In all the groups history was polemically interpreted. Past history and especially
contemporary events were adapted in the manner of a pesher (cf. CD, 1QS, 1QM,
and the passion narrative in the NT). The connection of Israel and the messiah
runs through the entire NT which is a consistent, urgent, infinitely varied pesher
seeking to prove that to be consistent with itself Judaism must recognize Jesus as
the messiah (cf. especially Lk. 2:30-32, 38; 24:21, 24, 44; Jesus Christ).
According to Luke, faith in Jesus is nothing but the legitimate extension of Pharisaic
belief (Acts 1-5; 28:20, 23). In every apparent antithesis the messiah stands in
continuity with Israel as its fulfilment (Matt. 5:17). According to Jn. 1:47, no one
is a “‘true son of Israel’ until he has recognized Jesus as Israel’s messiah, the ful-
filment of ancient promises and the renewal of the old covenant which has never
been revoked. In Rev. the conversion of the Jews is presented as the high point of
the eschatological victory (7:1-8).
The messiah and Israel stand inseparably together. Whoever does not decide
for this elect One opposes him. Whoever refuses to trust him (cf. faith in the Teacher,
1QpHab 8 :1-3, with faith in Jesus throughout the NT) has thereby decided against
Israel. He has lost his descent from Abraham (Jn. 8:49) and belongs to the syna-
gogue of Satan (Rev. 3:9). He is a son of darkness, a member of the community of
Belial (CD 4:13, 16; 8:2; 1QH 4:10-16). Nevertheless, both the one who evinces
such trust (even though it should be proved false) and the one who refuses it stand
within Judaism.
Israel and its Scriptures are the critical principle by which every messianic
pretender must be judged: the messiahs of Qumran were expected from Aaron and
Israel (CD 6:2 f.; 1QSa 2:11-21); the messiah Jesus from the patriarchs (Rom.
1:3; 9:5; Matt. 1:1-17 par. Lk. 3:23-38; Matt. 11:2-6; Jn. 5:39; cf. Sanhedrin
93b, 98b; Shabbath 63a). This was the only way in which Israel could protect her-
self against excess in spirit and prophecy, against the majority of messianic pre-
tenders and against overhasty solutions of the problems of her existence. The
witnesses of the NT also knew that the reality of Israel is the touchstone of chris-
tology. Therefore they clung passionately to Israel as the basic foundation of the
Christ event. Therefore, there emerges from the NT itself the sharpest opposition
to any abandonment of Israel (Rom. 9-11; Jn. 4:22). Only in living union with
Israel is + Jesus the Christ. Without this historical reality he dissolves into an
idea, a gnostic myth, and a docetic speculation. Hence in the case of the messiah
Jesus, —- baptism and — Lord’s Supper are the feasts of Israel. The — cross he
bore was a sharing in the suffering of Israel. Although Jewish Christians engaged
in the dialogue within Judaism found themselves cut off because of him from their
Jewish brethren, the NT demonstrates that Jesus, the Jew and Hebrew, represents
Israel completely in his person. He is bound up with Israel from first to last.
(e) Mission. This identification of the bringer of salvation with Israel entails
consequent missionary activity among Jews. As Jesus turned exclusively to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel, his messengers were to go only into the towns of Israel
(Matt. 10:5 f.; 15:24). Paul, the Jewish missionary (1 Cor. 9:20), also demon-
strated the priority of Judaism in salvation history (Rom. 1:16) by always going
first of all to the Jews (Acts 13:14; 41:1), and always acknowledging that he was a
314
ISRAEL
Jew (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5; Acts 22:3). Despite the failures of his Jewish mission
he held fast to Israel, his people (cf. Acts 28:20). On the basis of the Jewish Scrip-
tures Paul demonstrates in Rom. 9-11 in a kind of commentary-cum-anthology
of OT teaching that it is just Israel’s present hardening which is causing the message
of Christ to come to the Gentiles who thus acquire a share in Israel’s salvation. In
the end-time which is imminent the whole of Israel will be saved by God himself
(Rom. 11:26). An anticipatory sign of this undiminished faithfulness of God is
Jewish Christianity, the faithful remnant of Judaism, represented by Paul himself.
The question may be asked whether Paul’s removal of the barrier between Israel
and the Gentiles did not hasten the division of Israel, even though this was not his
intention.
The position of the various NT writers vis-a-vis Judaism is revealed in their use
of terms. Thus in Paul Jew is used 24 times, very often in opposition to — Greek,
Gentile, and mostly in a positive sense. Israel (17 times) stands for either the historic
people or the eschatological whole Israel but significantly not for Paul’s own
community. In the Synoptics as a whole, Israel stands for the people and also
the land (e.g. Matt. 20:1, 21:1). It is used in preference to Jew. Matt. contains the
expression “‘house of Israel’? (Matt. 10:6; 15:24 f.; cf. Acts 7:47; Heb. 8:8; 10:2).
Jew is used particularly in the phrase “‘King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:11, 29, 37; cf.
42: Mk. 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26; Lk. 23:3, 37 f.; Jn. 18:33, 39; 19:3, 19, 21) and almost
without exception on the lips of Gentiles with somewhat deprecating overtones
(Matt. 2:2; 28:15; Mk. 7:3; Lk. 7:3; 23:51). The use of the word Israel in general
clearly maintains the connection with the reality and hope of Israel. In Acts Israel
is used more frequently in the account of the Palestinian church (11 out of 15
passages; cf. 28:20 with 1:6; 2:36), while Jew is used more frequently in the narra-
tive of Paul’s missionary journeys (68 out of 79 passages). This corresponds to Hel.
usage. In Jn. it is clear from the few but fundamental passages where Israel is used
(1:49 and 12:13 of Jesus as king; 1:31 as the one to be revealed through John),
that the writer is still within the sphere of the whole of Israel, even though his
polemic is extremely sharp. This is expressed in the Johannine use of Jew (70 times),
which can indeed be used neutrally of the people or the religious community (e.g.
4:9; 18:35) and as in the Synoptics (King of the Jews, 18:33; 19:19 ff.). But mostly
it has the effect of expressing aloofness or, especially where it denotes the ruling
classes (e.g. 1:19; 7:11; 18:12), sharp rejection. While the Synoptics, especially
Matt., distinguish Jesus’ opponents according to the groups they belong to, Jn.
speaks in a general way of the Jews. In Rev. Jew has a positive sense. But it is not
applied to the community which does not believe in Jesus (2:9; 3:9). Israel is the
true eschatological people of God (2:14; 7:4; 21:12).
3. From the Gentile Mission to the Gentile Christian Church. Only when those to
whom the Jewish mission was originally addressed overwhelmingly rejected the
offer did the mission to the Gentiles arise (Acts 13:46). The tradition therefore had
to be restated to meet the demands of missionary practice among Gentiles. The
history of Israel which had been so prominent in addressing the Jews (cf. Acts
2:17-36; 3:22-26; 7:2-53) was dropped from the instruction given, because the
people did not have the preparation necessary to understand it. (The revelation
on Sinai is not mentioned in any confession of faith.) But despite this reduction,
God’s encounter with the Gentiles remained rooted in the historical experience of
315
ISRAEL
Israel in the teaching of the Jewish missionaries to the Gentiles. The Jesus-covenant
is the extension of the Sinai covenant (cf. Rom. 9-11; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6 ff.;
Gal. 4:24 ff.; Heb. 8:8 ff.; 10:16 ff.). In terms of world history the Christ-event
became the inclusion of the nations in the Sinai event.
Because of mounting internal tensions and disappointment over the attitude of
the dispersion, the position of Jewish Christians in the land of Israel became con-
tinually more difficult. Step by step they were transformed from a competing group
to the independent opponents of the Pharisees who now represented orthodox
Judaism. From A.D. 70 onwards Jewish Christians saw their own way of faith as
something distinct from that of the synagogue in the Jewish community. Legal
separation from the synagogue (above 2 (b)) meant exclusion from every area of
communal life (Tosefta Hullin 2:21 ff.).
The path of Gentile Christianity turned from Judaism and led into Gentile anti-
Semitism, which was on the increase after the catastrophe. The prophets’ criticism
of Israel was misunderstood as anti-Jewish and repeated irresponsibly. Even when
the words were kept their meaning was distorted to imply the opposite, and this
served to sharpen Gentile hatred of Jews. In place of living and healthy dialogue
between the groups there arose what was more like a dogmatizing monologue.
In Clement of Rome (perhaps a Jewish Christian, shortly before A.D. 100) one
can still trace a nearness to the world of the Heb. Bible and to Judaism (cf. 1 Clem.
4:13; 8:3; 29:2 f.; 31:24; 43; 55:6). But Ignatius of Antioch, a Gentile Christian,
writing c. A.D. 115, at the time of the persecutions under Trajan, expressed the
opinion that a Christian must necessarily be an opponent of Jews (Mag. 8; 10:3).
Barnabas and Justin, both Gentile Christians, wrote during and after the war
against Bar Kokhba. Barnabas uses the word Israel mostly in connection with his
exegesis of the Bible against Israel (sometimes historical, often typological, 4:15;
6:7; 8:1-3; 11:1; 12:2, 5; 16:5), but he does not yet dare to take over this word
for the — church. Justin, on the other hand, asserts boldly: ““We are... the true
spiritual Israel’ (Dial. 11, 5; cf. 100, 4; 123, 9). Their own Bible remains obscure
to the Jewish people, because they do not listen to the voice of the Lord. Only the
church possesses true insight (Barn. 8:7; 10:12; Just., Dial. 9, 1; 33, 1 f.). Israel
has a greatness beyond time, which has never belonged to the Jews but always to
Christians (the contesting of the covenant, Barn. 4:6). The way of Barnabas and
Justin became the way of the church. After the council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) it was
finally stated that church and synagogue have nothing in common (cf. Eusebius,
Vita Constantini 3, 18). R. Mayer
[taxop "Taxwp (Ulakob), Jacob; *IakwBoc (lakobos), James;
| ’Tovéata (Ioudaia), Judea; ’Iojdac Uloudas), Judah, Judas,
Jude.
oT Jacob was the second son of Isaac and Rebekah and grandson of the patriarch
Abraham. He was favoured by his mother, while Isaac was partial to his other
son Esau. Early in his life Jacob obtained the birthright due his brother Esau by
giving him ‘‘a mess of pottage”’ in return for the birthright. This transfer of birth-
right is illustrated in the Nuzi material where the rights of primogeniture allowed
316
ISRAEL
for transferal of privilege to another (cf. ANET, 219 f.). According to the Deuter-
onomic legislation, the right of the first-born included a double portion of the
paternal estate (Deut. 21:17), and most probably involved leadership of the clan
as well (Gen. 27:29).
The subterfuge by which Jacob obtained the blessing of Isaac was initiated and
encouraged by Rebekah (Gen. 27:5-17). The blessing (Gen. 27:27—29) apparently
was regarded as having the validity that a last will and testament has in contem-
porary practice. This too is illustrated in the Nuzi material where the last words of a
dying father were upheld in litigation before witnesses (ANET, 220).
The deception led to Jacob’s flight to the home of his uncle Laban. As he stopped
for the night at Luz, Jacob had a dream of a ladder reaching to heaven (Gen. 28 :10-
17). In the — dream the Lord spoke to Jacob reiterating the promise given earlier
to Abraham (Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 16; 15:17-21; 17:1-8; 24:7). Not only did the
reiteration of the promise include the affirmation that the land would belong to the
descendants of the patriarchs (Gen. 28:13), but that they and their descendants
would be the vehicle by which God’s favour would extend to the Gentiles (28:
14).
Jacob’s dramatic encounter with the Lord led to his calling the site Bethel (i.e.
‘“‘house of God’’) and that site continued to be known as Bethel throughout the
OT tradition. Jacob was hired by Laban and in return for seven years of labour he
was to receive Laban’s daughter Rachel as his wife. Laban however deceived
Jacob into marrying his other daughter Leah and Jacob continued to work for
seven more years that he might marry Rachel.
Leah became the mother of Jacob’s sons Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar
and Zebulun.
Rachel, however, did not bear children immediately and, in keeping with the
prevailing custom frequently cited in the Nuzi material (ANET, 220), gave a
concubine, Bilhah, to her husband. Bilhah became the mother of Dan and Naph-
tali. At length Rachel gave birth to two sons, Joseph and Benjamin. Jacob also had
two sons, Gad and Asher, by Zilpah, Leah’s maid.
Relations between Jacob and Laban and his family became strained due in part
to Jacob’s increase in wealth (Gen. 31:1, 2), and a separation was effected by
Jacob. On hearing of Jacob’s departure Laban pursued him. When he reached
Jacob he berated him for several things including the alleged theft of the family
gods (Gen. 31:30), which, in reality, Rachel had taken and secreted in the camel’s
saddle. The possession of the family gods (¢*rdpim), according to the Nuzi material,
designated the one who had the right to the paternal estate. After a mutual agree-
ment that they would not again interfere with one another Jacob resumed his
journey. (On the background of this period see E. A. Speiser, ““New Kirkuk
Documents Relating to Family Laws’, Annual of American Schools of Oriental
Research 13, 1930, 1-73; C. H. Gordon, ““Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets’,
BA 3, 1940, 1-12; and ““The Patriarchal Narratives”, JNES 13, 1954, 56-59.)
In a dramatic event at the river Jabbok Jacob wrestled with a man whom he
identified as God (Gen. 32:30). It was during this experience that Jacob’s name
was changed to Israel (> Jsraé/). The site of the encounter was named Peniel (“‘face
of God’’) by Jacob.
As the homeward journey continued, Jacob encountered Esau (Gen. 33:1-4)
317
ISRAEL
whose approach he had heard of earlier (Gen. 32:6). A reconciliation was effected
by the two brothers which seems to have been an enduring one.
After an unfortunate experience with the clan of Shechem (Gen. 34), Jacob
removed to Bethel but not before he had all the images of foreign deities removed
from his household. After the images were buried under an oak at Shechem
the Lord appeared to Jacob and the terms of the Abrahamic covenant were again
affirmed.
On the journey from Bethel Jacob suffered the loss of his wife Rachel, who died
while giving birth to Benjamin. This tragedy was soon followed by the death of his
father Isaac (Gen. 35:29) and the banishment of his son Joseph to Egypt (Gen. 37).
Joseph rose to power in Egypt and his wisdom and foresight led to his overseeing
the storage of food in Egypt. This propitious act enabled the Egyptians to have
provisions while many in the surrounding areas were ravaged by famine. The
famine struck Canaan and Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to obtain food. He kept
his youngest son Benjamin with him, however. Alleging that they were spies,
Joseph required them to bring Benjamin to Egypt to prove their word and, hence,
their innocence. After bringing Benjamin to Egypt, Joseph identified himself as
their brother and arranged to have Jacob brought to Egypt as well. Jacob lived in
Egypt for 17 years. When he was near death he exacted from Joseph the promise
that he would bury him in Canaan. He adopted Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and
Manasseh (Gen. 48: 1-6) and pronounced a — blessing on them as well as his own
sons (Gen. 48 : 8-49 :27). Jacob died at the age of 147 years and was buried with his
ancestors in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 50:1-13).
The name Jacob became an eponym for Israel and occurs frequently with that
connotation in the OT (Num. 23:7, 10, 23; Psa. 14:7; Isa. 48:20; Amos 3:13 etc.).
The patriarch Jacob is frequently cited in the OT in connection with the acts of
God on his behalf. God is frequently described as the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob (Exod. 3:6, 15) and the covenant given to the patriarchs is cited in the same
connection (2 Ki. 13:23). Malachi assured the people that the love shown by God
to Jacob had not been withheld from them with the words, “I have loved Jacob
but I have hated Esau” (Mal. 1:2, 3). Typical of the way in which the intertesta-
mental literature maintains the covenantal aspects of the name Jacob is the citation
in 2 Macc. 1:2 where it is affirmed that God will remember his covenant with the
patriarchs.
Iakobos (James) is the Hellenized form of Jak6b. This form is used frequently by
Josephus for the name of the patriarch Jacob.
NT In the NT Jakob denotes both the patriarch Jacob and the father of Joseph
(Matt. 1:15, 16). Aside from the citation of the name Jacob in the genealogies
of Matt. and Lk. (Matt. 1:2, 15 f.; Lk. 3:34), several allusions are made to events
in Jacob’s life by the NT writers. In Jn. 4:5, 6, 12 reference is made to a plot of
ground that Jacob gave to Joseph which was the site of Jacob’s well (Gen. 33:19;
48 :22). Stephen in Acts 7 refers to several events in the life of Jacob (vv. 8, 12, 14)
and the writer of Hebrews cites Jacob in Heb. 11, specifically in his relationship to
the —- promise given to — Abraham (v. 9) and as an example of — faith (v. 21).
The transfer of the birthright is cited by the writer of Hebrews (12:16, 17) who uses
Esau’s selling of his birthright as a warning to his readers not to put off repentance.
318
ISRAEL
In Rom. 9:6—13 Paul cites the events surrounding the birth of Jacob and Esau
in a passage explicating the fact that God’s work of election is not based on works
(v. 11). Paul in this passage refers to the purposes expressed in the words spoken
by God before the births of Jacob and Esau, “‘the elder shall serve the younger”
(Gen. 25:23). He quotes Mal. 1:2, 3 in this connection as well. Allusion is made to
Jacob’s dream at Bethel in John 1:51 where Christ transfers the image of the ladder
to himself.
“The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” is an expression that occurs in the NT
as well as the more singular expression, ““The God of Jacob’’. In his defence of his
teaching on the resurrection Jesus used the formula ““The God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob” to illustrate that God was the God of the living (Matt. 22:32; Mark
12:26; Luke 20:37). The same expression was used by Peter (Acts 3:13) in its
specific connection with the patriarchs, “‘the God of our fathers’’ in speaking to
Jews. The appellation “God of Jacob” in Acts 7:46 is used as an appellation for
God and seems to reflect the language of Ps. 132:5.
Jacob is mentioned along with the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac in Matt. 8:11
where their fellowship in heaven is the reward of the people of faith. Jacob is used
as an eponym of the Jewish nation in Luke 1:33 and Rom. 11:26 (the latter being a
free quotation from Isa. 59:20). T. McComiskey
‘Tobea ’Tobda (louda), Judah; *Jobéac (loudas), Judah, Judas.
oT The word Jouda in the NT, LXX and secular Gk. represents the Heb. word
y*hidah (Judah). The meaning of the word is uncertain but probably means
“praised” (Gen. 29:35; — Israél, OT 1).
In the OT Judah was the fourth son of Jacob. His mother was Leah. He seems
to have held great influence among his brothers as evinced by their acquiescence
to his wish that Joseph be sent to Egypt (Gen. 37:26, 27) and by his acting as
spokesman for them in Egypt (Gen. 43:3-10; 44:16-34). Judah figures prominently
in the blessing of Jacob where he was promised a position of honour among his
brothers, as well as the prospect of sovereignty and dominion realized in a future
king (Gen. 49:10 RSV).
Several others in the OT also bore the name Judah (Ezr. 3:9; 10:23; Neh. 11:9;
12:8, 36). The name Judah continued to be born by the tribe of which Jacob’s son
was the progenitor. The tribe does not seem to have distinguished itself greatly in
the history of Israel, although it did comprise a vanguard in a strategic encounter
with the Canaanites (Jdg. 1:1-7).
The territory occupied by the tribe of Judah consisted mainly of highland country
in the area of Canaan westward from the Dead Sea. The territory extended to the
Mediterranean Sea and was bounded on the north by the tribal territories of
Benjamin and Dan. The Negev formed the southern boundary.
The réle of the tribe of Judah in the period of the united monarchy seems to
have been no different from that of any other tribe. However, when the division
of the monarchy occurred the southern kingdom became known as the kingdom of
Judah, although elements in the tribe of Benjamin remained loyal to the house of
David as well.
319
ISRAEL
The history of the kingdom of Judah was threatened by internal and external
difficulties. Not all her kings were wise, but several made positive contributions to
her welfare. During the reign of Uzziah (767-739 B.c.) the fortunes of Judah as
well as of Israel were greatly enhanced by the quiescence of Assyria on the world
scene. This period of affluence, however, was characterized by an internal sickness,
for the — covenant stipulations were being violated leading to societal wrongs
that the eighth century prophets warned would lead to her downfall. Under
Hezekiah (716-686 B.c.) a serious Assyrian incursion came to an end with the
withdrawal of the Assyrian forces. While Hezekiah’s foreign policy was, at times,
unwise (Isa. 30:15) his contribution to the kingdom of Judah was generally
commendable. |
Following Hezekiah’s reign the fortunes of Judah began to suffer again. The
burgeoning Assyrian influence in Syro-Palestine ultimately led to the defeat of
Judah. Nebuchadnezzar extracted tribute from Judah some time after his rise to
power in 605 B.c., but successive attacks ultimately led to the end of Judah as a
kingdom in 587 B.c.
NT In Matt. 2:6 Jouda occurs in the sense of the territory of Judah in a quotation
from Micah 5:2. The reference is to Bethlehem of Judea (Matt. 2:5) which was
located in the territory of Judah. In Luke 1:39 Jouda occurs in the expression eis
polin Iouda. Since Luke invariably uses Joudaia for the province it seems more
likely that Jouda here is a town now unknown.
In Heb. 7:14 reference is made to the descent of Christ from the tribe of Judah,
a tribe which had no priestly prerogatives. The point is made that the Levitical
priesthood was unable to achieve perfection for its adherents, hence the need for
another priest. This represents a change in the law (v. 12), for Christ did not descend
from the tribe of Levi which, according to the law, was the tribe from which the
priests were to be chosen.
In Heb. 8:8 the house of Judah is cited along with the house of Israel to represent
the whole nation. The reference here is to the two kingdoms of the divided monarchy
and occurs in a quotation from Jer. 31:31—34 where the new covenant is predicted.
The tribe of Judah is cited in Rev. 5:5; 7:5 as well. In the former, Christ’s
descent from the tribe of Judah is reflected in the appellation “Lion of the tribe of
Judah” (— Animal). In Rev. 7:5, the tribe of Judah is cited along with other tribes
with whom the group numbering ‘“‘a hundred and forty-four thousand” is as-
sociated (—~ Number, art. chilias NT 4).
Ioudas occurs as the name of several individuals in the NT. (1) The fourth son of
Jacob (Matt. 1:2, 3; Luke 3:33, 34). (2) An ancestor of Christ (Luke 3:26). The
spelling here however is Joda (Joda RSV). He is the son of Joanan. (3) An ancestor
of Christ (Luke 3:30) who was the son of Joseph. (4) Judas, surnamed the Galilean,
who participated in an insurrection during a tax census under Quirinius (Acts 5:37).
See also Josephus (Ant. 18). (5) Judas of Damascus (Acts 9:11) who gave Saul of
Tarsus (Paul) lodging after Saul’s vision on the road to Damascus. It was there that
Ananias was to go to find Saul. (6) Judas, a brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark
6:3). This Judas is considered by some to be the same as Jude, the author of the
NT epistle. (7) Judas, the son of James, one of the twelve apostles (Luke 6:16;
Acts 1:13). He was one of the group who engaged in prayer in an upper room after
320
ISRAEL
the ascension of Christ. (8) Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, who betrayed Jesus.
The meaning of Iscariot is not clear. It may have been a Hellenization of the Heb.
“‘man of Qerioth’’. He is cited first in the accounts of the choosing of the twelve
(Matt. 10:4; Mark. 3:19; Luke 6:16). His betrayal of Jesus (John 13:26-30) was
decisively carried out after Jesus said to him, ““What you are going to do, do quickly”’
(RSV). After an unsuccessful effort to atone for his wrong by returning the money
paid him for his treachery Matthew records that Judas hanged himself (27:5;
—> Akeldama; cf. B. Gartner, Jscariot, Facet Books, 1971). (9) Judas Barsabbas was
one of the two chosen to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 15:22).
Judas Barsabbas was chosen along with Silas by the Jerusalem Council to sub-
stantiate the council’s decision. T. McComiskey
—> Abraham, — Babylon, — Egypt, — Election, — Greek, — Jerusalem, — Jesus
Christ, — Levite, — People, — Pharisee, — Priest, — Prophet, — Sadducee, —
Samaritan, — Temple
(a). Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 1967; W. F. Albright, From the
Stone Age to Christianity, 1957?; Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 1968; Archaeology and the
Religion of Israel, 1953*; The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra, 1963; and The Archaeology of
Palestine, revised ed. 1960; A. Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966; B. W.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 1957; G. L. Archer, ‘‘Hebrew Language’’, ZPEB III
66-76; M. Avi-Yonah, Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavation in the Holy Land, I-IV, 1976-;
L. Baeck, The Pharisees, 1957; S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, I-XV,
1952-73; J. Bright, A History of Israel, revised ed. 1972; and ‘‘Hebrew Religion’, /DB II 560-—
70; F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, 1963; M. Buber, Two Types of Faith, 1951; and The Pro-
phetic Faith, 1960; D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historio-
graphy from 1770 to the Present Day, 1971; H. Cazelles, “The Hebrews’’, in D. J. Wiseman, ed.,
Peoples of Old Testament Times, 1973, 1-28; G. A. Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old
Testament, 1946 (see also the review by I. Engnell in Symbolae Biblicae Upsalienses 7, 1946);
W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, 1974;
J. D. M. Derrett, ““Cursing Jesus (I Cor. xii. 3): The Jews as Religious ‘Persecutors’”’, NTS 21,
1974-75, 544-54; S. Dubnov, History of the Jews, I-IV, revised by M. Spiegel, 1967-71; W.
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 1961, II, 1967; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An
Introduction, 1965; 1. Epstein, Judaism, 1945; and The Jewish Way of Life, 1946; L. Finkelstein,
ed., The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, I-IV, 1949; G. Fohrer, History of Israelite
Religion, 1973; W. Forster, Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times, 1964; E. R. Goodenough,
Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Period, I-XIII, 1953-65; J. van Goudoever, ““The Place of
Israel in Luke’s Gospel’’, NovT 11, 1966, 111 ff.; L. Goppelt, Jesus, Paul and Judaism, 1964; F. C.
Grant, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, 1960; and Roman Hellenism and the New Testa-
ment, 1962; M. Grant, Herod the Great, 1971; 1962 L. H. Grollenberg, Atlas of the Bible, 1956; A.
Haldar, “Israel, Names and Associations of’, DB II 765 f.; A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Tech-
nique and Theology, 1974; R. K. Harrison, A History of Old Testament Times, 1957; and Intro-
duction to the Old Testament, 1970; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, III, 1974; S. Herrmann, A
History of Israel in Old Testament Times, 1975; H. W. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 1972; E. Jacob,
Theology of the Old Testament, 1959; A. Jeffrey, “Hebrew Language’’, IDB II 553-60; J. Jervell,
Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts, 1972; J. Jocz, The Jewish People and Jesus
Christ, 1949; E. Kasemann, ‘“‘Paul and Israel’, New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 183-87;
Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 1961; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Ancient Israel, 1966; G.
Lindeskog, ‘‘Israel in the New Testament’, Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 26, 1961, 57 ff.; J. McKay,
Religion in Judah under the Assyrians, 732-609 8.c., SBT Second Series 26, 1973; I. H. Marshall,
‘“‘Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments’, NTS 19, 1972-73, 271-
87; A. D. H. Mayes, Israel in the Period of the Judges, SBT Second Series 29, 1974; G. F. Moore,
Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, I-III, 1927-30; J. Morgenstern, “‘Israel, Social
and Economic Development of’, DB II 766-70; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956; J. Munck,
‘Israel and the Gentiles”, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 1959, 247-81; and Christ and Israel
321
ISRAEL
1967; M. Pearlman, The Maccabees, 1973; J. H. Negenman, New Atlas of the Bible, ed. H. H.
Rowley, 1969; M. Noth, The History of Israel, 19607; and The Laws of the Pentateuch and Other
Studies, 1966; S. Pancaro, ““The Relationship of the Church to Israel in the Gospel of St. John’’,
NTS 21, 1974-75, 396-405; J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture, I-II, 1926, III-IV, 1940; J. B.
Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 19557; G. von Rad, Old
Testament Theology, I, 1962, II, 1965; G. von Rad, K. G. Kuhn, W. Gutbrod, Jsraél etc., TDNT
III 357-91; O. S. Rankin, Jewish Religious Polemic in Narrative, Poetry, Letters and Debate,
(1956) 1969; P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, 1969; H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion,
1966; C. Roth and G. Wigoder, eds., Encyclopaedia Judaica, I-XVI1, 1971-72; L. Roth, Judaism:
A Portrait, 1960; H. H. Rowley, “Israel, History of”, /DB II 750-65; The Missionary Message
of the Old Testament, 1945; From Joseph to Joshua, 1951; The Faith of Israel, 1956; From Moses
to Qumran, 1963; Men of God: Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy, 1963; The Servant
of the Lord and Other Essays, 19657; and Worship in Ancient Israel, 1967; S. Safrai, M. Stern et al.,
The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural
and Religious Life and Institutions, I, 1974; S.Sandmel, We Jews and Jesus, 1965; S. Sandmel, ed.,
Old Testament Issues, 1969; E. Schiirer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
I, 1-2, I, 1-3, 1885-90; Vol. I revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black, 1973; C. H. H.
Scobie, ‘‘North and South: Tension and Reconciliation in Biblical History’’, in J. R. McKay and
J. F. Miller, eds., Biblical Studies: Essays in Honour of William Barclay, 1976, 87-98; M. H.
Shepherd, Jr., ‘“The Jews in the Gospel of John. Another Level of Meaning’’, Anglican Theological
Review, Suppl. Series 3, 1974, 95-112; I. Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia, XII, 1901-6;
J. N. Sevenster, The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World, 1975; A. N. Sherwin-
White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963; R. A. Stewart, Rabbinic
Theology, 1961; W. B. Tatum, ““The Epoch of Israel: Luke i-1i and the Theological Plan of Luke—
Acts”, NTS 13, 1966-67, 184-95; H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian,
1967; D. W. Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times, 1958; J. A. Thompson, “‘Israel,
Religion of”, ZPEB III 354-72; S. van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew, 1972; V. A.
Tscherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 1959; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and
Institutions, 1961; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 1973; C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament
Theology, 1958; and The Religion of Ancient Israel, 1967; M. Weipert, The Settlement of the
Israelite Tribes In Palestine, 1971; A. L. Williams, Adversus Judaeos: A Bird’s Eye View of Christian
Apologiae until the Renaissance, 1935; D. J. Wiseman, Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology,
1958; H. W. Wolff, Old Testament Anthropology, 1974; G. E. Wright, The Old Testament against its
Environment, 1950; God Who Acts, 1952; Biblical Archaeology, 19627; and The Old Testament and
Theology, 1969; G. E. Wright ed., The Bible and the Near East, Essays in Honour of William
Foxwell Albright, 1961; S. Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judean State, \-II, 1967-69.
(b). M. Avi-Yonah, Geschichte der Juden im Zeitalter des Talmud in den Tagen von Rom und
Byzanz, 1962; O. Bachli, Israel und die Volker, AThANT 41, 1962; K. Bernhardt, Schalom. Studien
zur Glaube und Geschichte Israels. A. Jepsen zum 70. Geburtstag, AzTh Reihe 1, 46, 1971; H. Bieten-
hard, ‘‘Kirche und Synagoge in den ersten Jahrhunderten’’, ThZ 4, 1948, 174 ff.; E. Bickermann,
Der Gott der Makkabder, 1937; N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes, 1941; N. A. Dahl and G. Schrenk,
‘‘Der Name Israel’’, Judaica 6, 1950, 161 ff.; P. Diepold, Israels Land, BWANT 95, 1972; E. Dinkler,
‘“‘Pradestination bei Paulus’’, in W. Schneemelcher, ed., Festschrift fiir Giinther Dehn, 1957, 81-82;
W. Eckert, N. P. Levinson and M. Stohr, eds., Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament ? Abhandlungen
zum christlich-jiidischen Dialog, 2, 1967; W. Eichrodt, Israel in der Weissagung des Alten Testa-
ments, 1951; W. Forster, Die jiidische Frage, 1959; J. B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum,
1958; V. Fritz, Israel in der Wiiste, Marburger theologische Studien 7, 1970; L. Fuchs, Die Juden
Agyptens, 1924: K. Galling, Die Erwdahlungstradition Israels, 1928; A. George, ‘‘Israél dans
l’oeuvre de Luc’, RB 75, 1968, 481-525; G. Gerlemann, yisra’el, THAT I 782-85; N. N. Glatzer,
Geschichte der talmudischen Zeit, 1937; E. Grdasser, ““Die antijiidische Polemik im Johannes-
evangelium”’, NTS 10, 1964-65, 74-90; J. H. Grolle, Gesprek met Israél, 1949; M. Hengel, Die
Zeloten, 1961; Israel und die Kirche. Eine Studie im Auftrag der General-Synode der Niederlandischen
Reformierten Kirche, 1961; and “‘Die Begegnung von Judentum und Hellenismus im Palastina
der vorchristlichen Zeit’, in O. B6cher and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas. Festschrift fiir
Gustav Stahlin, 1970, 329-48; J. Janssen, Juda in der Exilzeit, FRLANT 69, 1956; J. Juster, Les
Juifs dans l’Empire Romain, 1914; H.-J. Kraus and R. R. Geis, eds., Versuche des Verstehens.
Dokumente jiidisch-christlicher Begegnung aus den 1918-1933, 1966; H. Kremers, Das Verhdltnis
322
ISRAEL
der Kirche zu Israel, 1964; M. Krupp, Vergesse ich dein Jerusalem, 1962; J. Leipoldt, Antisemitismus
in der alten Welt, 1933; G. Lindeskog, Die Jesusfrage im neuzeitlichen Judentum, 1938; F. W.
Marquardt, Die Juden im Roémerbrief, TheolStud 107, 1971; W. D. Marsch and K. Thieme,
Christen und Juden, 1961; W. Maurer, Kirche und Synagoge, 1953; O. Michel, “‘Spatjiidisches
Prophetentum’’, in Neutestamentliche Studien fiir Rudolf Bultmann, 1954, 60 ff.; ‘‘“Polemik und
Scheidung”’, in Festschrift fiir W. Freytag, 1959, 185 ff.; ‘Das Judentum Jesu”, Deutsches Pfarrer-
blatt 60, 1960, 465 ff.; Der Brief an die Romer, KEK 13, 19661”; and ‘‘Jesus der Jude’, in H. Ristow
and K. Matthiae, eds., Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, 19627, 310-16; C.
Miller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk. Eine Untersuchung zu Rémer 9-11, FRLANT 86,
1964; M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung,
1928; and Das System der zwolf Stamme Israels, 1930; A. Oepke, Das neue Gottesvolk, 1950; G.
von Rad, Das Gottesvolk im Deuteronomium, 1929; L. Ragaz, Israel, Judentum, Christentum,
19432; G. Rosen, Juden und Phénizer, 1929; L. Rost, Israel bei den Propheten, 1937; and Die
Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge im Alten Testament, 1938; H. H. Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber,
1930; A. Schlatter, Synagoge und Kirche bis zum Barkochba-Aufstand, 1966; R. Smend, ‘Zur
Frage der altisraelitischen Amphiktyonie’, Ev7h 31, 1971, 623 ff.; G. Schrenk, Der gottliche
Sinn in Israels Geschick, 1943; and ‘“‘Was bedeutet ‘Israel Gottes’?’’, Judaica 5, 1949, 81 ff.; M.
Simon, Verus Israel, Etude sur les Relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l’ Empire Romain, 1948:
V. Solovjov, Das Judentum und die christliche Frage, 1884; J. J. Stamm, Der Staat Israel und die
Landverheissungen in der Bibel 19612; P. Tillich, Die Judenfrage, ein christliches und ein deutsches
Problem, 1953; W. Trilling, Das wahre Israel. Studien zur Theologie des Matthdus-Evangeliums,
1964°; T. C. Vriezen, Die Erwahlung Israels nach dem Alten Testament, 1953; W. Zimmerli, [srael
und die Christen, 1964.
323
Jerusalem
"Iepovoadnu (lerousalém), and ‘IepoaddAvua (Hieroso-
TepovaaAnpu lyma), Jerusalem; Lidv (Sion), Zion.
cL lerousalém and Sion are proper nouns, unknown in early secular Gk. The form
Hierosolyma was used for the city in the Roman province of Judea and Hieroso-
lymités for an inhabitant of Jerusalem by Strabo, Dio Cassius and Jewish Hel.
writers like Philo and Josephus. Hel. Judaism of the dispersion took advantage of
this rendering of the Heb. name to liken it to Gk. hieros, holy, in order to distinguish
the city as the hiera polis of Judaism.
oT |. The Israelites found Jerusalem as the name of the original Canaanite city-
state (cf. Jos. 10:1) and took it over. The etymology has only recently been
explained. This Canaanite name means something like “‘Foundation of Salem’,
i.e. of a god who, according to Ugaritic texts, embodied the twilight. His sanctuary
was in this settlement, which originally was situated on the hill Zion. In later
history Jerusalem remained the name of the whole of the expanding settlement.
Even after David had seized it, the city retained its name. But it was also called
City of David, a term which was later used only of the old city, however. Sometimes,
therefore, Zion, Jerusalem and the City of David are synonymous (cf. 2 Sam.
5:6 ff.; 1 Ki. 8:1; 1 Chr. 11:4 ff; 2 Chr. 5:2).
2. The etymology of the name Zion (Heb. siyyén) cannot be explained with
certainty. Some think, on the basis of related Syr. and Arab. roots, that it 1s possible
to discover the meaning barren mountain. A different etymological derivation
might give the meaning mountain fortress, stronghold. All that is certain is that it
derives from Canaan’s pre-Israelite period and represents a description of the
terrain, a geographical name. From the earliest times Zion was the name of the
south-east hill, site of the original Jebusite fortress and of the ancient Canaanite
settlement of Jerusalem (Jos. 10 and the historical reminiscence of Ezek. 16:2 ff.),
which are referred to synonymously as early as the second millennium B.c. The
name of the city in Jdg. 19:10 f. and 1 Chr. 11:4 1s Jebus, derived from the proper
noun Jebusite, the name also given to the inhabitants by the Amarna letters (1400-
1350 B.c.). But the city never made this name its own, and it did not prevail.
3. (a) In the OT writings y*risdlayim occurs as the name of the city far more
frequently than siyyén (660 times and 154 respectively). In the canonical texts the
LXX transcribes the Heb. original as Jerousalém (fem.) and in the Apocrypha
occasionally as Hierosolyma (neut. plur.). While in the canonical texts, in accordance
with the Heb. original, the inhabitants are described as enoikountes Ierousalém
(Isa. 5:3; Zech. 12:10), as hyioi Ierousalém, sons of Jerusalem (Joel 3:6; cf. Zech.
324
JERUSALEM
9:9, thygater Ierousalém, daughter of Jerusalem), we meet in the Apocrypha the
new term Hierosolymités (e.g. Sir. 50:27; 4 Macc. 4:22; 18:25; cf. Mk. 1:5; Jn.
725).
(b) As a neutral city, belonging neither to Judah nor Israel and yet lying exactly
between the two territories, Jerusalem was an ideal capital for King > David.
Since he captured it with an army of mercenaries it remained independent, at the
same time King David’s private possession (cf. 2 Sam. 5:6-10).
M. Noth, however, sees the bringing of the ark of Yahweh into the temple in
Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6) as the decisive act for the further significance of the city (M.
Noth, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 29 ff., 132-44, 250-54).
This act gave to the Jerusalem — temple the role of the old amphictyonic central
sanctuary, which was to achieve very great importance in Israel’s hopes for the
future. Only the original transfer of the ark to the Jerusalem temple could explain
why Jerusalem, a Canaanite city, with its peculiar independent position as seat of the
Davidic dynasty, should become the cultic centre of — Israel. Even after the nor-
thern kingdom’s break with the south, Jerusalem retained its central theological
significance for both kingdoms (1 Ki. 12:27, 28). ““Even though the sanctuary in
Jerusalem became a cultic centre for the tribes on account of the presence of the
Ark, this shrine itself became more and more a central holy place, gaining as such
an importance of its own” (Noth, op. cit., 142). Yahweh of hosts, who once was
enthroned above the ark (2 Sam. 6:2), is now the one “who dwells on Mount
Zion”’ (Isa. 8:18), on the “mountain of the house of the Lord” (Isa. 2:2 f.; Mic.
4:1 f.).
G. Fohrer, on the other hand, disputes the continued influence of amphictyonic
ideas (TDNT VII 302 ff.). After its transfer the ark no longer played an essential
réle and the recognition of Jerusalem by the Israelites (1 Ki. 12:26 ff.) was a
Deuteronomistic construction or to be attributed to the annexation of Israel by
Josiah (cf. Jer. 41:5).
Whatever the truth may be, in the early history of Israel Jerusalem, as the royal
capital, was the centre of the political kingdom and honoured as such. As temple
city of the centralized cult, the city was still a spiritual and religious centre,
much visited even after the dissolution of the political unity. The holy city (Isa.
48:2; 52:1) became more and more the focus of theocratic hopes. Historical
experiences, but also theological reflection, strengthened and extended the idea of
the inviolability and indestructibility of the temple city (cf. Isa. 36 ff.; 2 Ki. 18 ff.;
2 Chr. 32; Jer. 7:4). During the exile, in particular, it was the embodiment of every
longing (Ps. 137). From here it was only a short step to join the name of the city
with eschatological expectations (Jer. 31:38 ff.). It was expected that Jerusalem
would become the focus for the whole world, to which all the Gentiles would
stream (Jer. 3:17), and which would then be called “a house of prayer for all
peoples”’ (Isa. 56:7). In all this complex of ideas Jerusalem and Zion are frequently
used together.
(c) When the prophets came to speak about the conditions which they them-
selves could observe in Jerusalem, however, a different picture was revealed.
Jerusalem had fallen away from God and become a prostitute. The worship of
idols and disregard of God’s commandments were rife in the city. The kings and the
citizens along with them were going their own political ways, unconcerned about the
325
JERUSALEM
will of God (cf. the relevant passages in Isa., Jer., Mic., Ezek.). Hence, the prophets
announced to the city the — judgment of God (cf. e.g. Jer..6:22 ff.; Isa. 32:9 ff.),
judgment which could not be prevented because the corrupt people would not turn
and repent (Jer. 4:3 f.). Foreign peoples and kings would carry out the judgment,
which would result in a cleansed and purified Jerusalem (Isa. 40). It was Yahweh’s
intention to do good to Jerusalem once again (Zech. 8:15), and at the end of the
age the city “‘shall be holy and strangers shall never again pass through it’’ (Joel -
3:17 [4:17 MT]). The eschatological Jerusalem was always thought of, however,
only as an improved, renewed earthly city; never as supernatural and heavenly.
Therefore the nations could go on pilgrimage to it and accept a new way of life
(Isa. 2:2 ff.), and turn to Yahweh (Jer. 3:17). From Jerusalem streams of blessing
would pour out into the world (Ezek. 47:1 ff.). From this sanctified city Yahweh
would reign over the whole world (Isa. 24:23). Here would be his throne (Jer. 3:17).
4. (a) Thename Si6n was at first not used by the Israelites. Only later did prophets
and poets take up the name again. In so doing they extended or shifted its meaning.
On the one hand, Zion together with Jerusalem could be applied to the whole
expanded city, and Zion could be equated with Judah (e.g. Jer. 14:19; Ps. 69:35)
and occasionally even with Israel (Isa. 46:13; Ps. 149:2). On the other hand, Zion
was no longer reckoned as the south-east hill but included the north-east hill with
the temple buildings on it (cf. Ps. 2:6; 20:2). Yahweh is God on Zion (Ps. 99:2;
135:21) and (according to Jer. 8:19) the Lord of hosts dwells on Mount Zion. The
inhabitants of Zion (like the inhabitants of other cities) were called sons or daughters
of Zion (e.g. 2 Ki. 19:21; Pss. 9:4; 149:2; Isa. 1:8; 3:16 f.; Zech. 9:9).
(b) If one examines the use of this loan-word one finds it particularly frequently
where the emphasis is on the cultic location as a sacral focus where the presence of
Yahweh is felt. ““Going up to Zion”’ is the same thing as “‘going to the Lord” (Jer.
31:6). It is in Zion that Yahweh dwells (Ps. 9:11).
5. (a) The use of the names in early Judaism does not differ from that of the OT.
Jerusalem/Zion was the beloved city, towards which one turned one’s face, in
whatever part of the world, during the daily times of prayer. One went there on
pilgrimage, whenever possible at the great festivals, and wished to die and be buried
there. Huge sums of money flowed to Jerusalem from the dispersion in the form of
temple tax, with the help of which the sacrificial ritual was maintained.
(b) Eschatological ideas developed. Alongside the concept that the earthly city
would be the scene of Yahweh’s victory (2 Esd. 13:25 ff.; Sib. 3:663 ff.) there
developed in the apocalyptic literature a belief in the heavenly, pre-existent Jeru-
salem (Syr.Bar. 4:2 ff.), descending to earth at the end of the age (2 Esd. 10:27, 54;
13:36). According to another conception, it remains in heaven as the place in
which the righteous will eventually dwell (Sl.Enoch 55:2). The new Zion/Jerusalem
will be of unimaginable beauty (Tob. 13:16 ff.), inhabited by vast multitudes (Sib.
5:251 f.), ruled over by God himself (Sib. 3:787); the focus of this gigantic city is
the new temple, to which — gifts are brought (Tob. 13:10 f.).
NT 1. (a) In the NT the name Jerusalem occurs 139 times. As in the LXX we meet
in the NT the two forms Jerousalém (76 times) and Hierosolyma (63 times).
While Matt., Luke (in Lk. and Acts) and Paul in Gal. use both forms, Mk. and Jn.
use only the Hel. form, and Paul, on the contrary (in Rom. and | Cor.), Heb. and
326
JERUSALEM
Rev. use only the transcribed Semitic form. The name is completely absent from the
Pastoral and Catholic Epistles.
(b) The name Zion occurs only 7 times in the NT: Rom. 9:33 and | Pet. 2.6
(citing Isa. 28:16); Rom. 11:26 (citing Isa. 59:20; cf. Ps. 14:7). In Matt. 21:5 and
Jn. 12:15, likewise citing the OT (cf. Zech. 9:9; Isa. 40:9; 62:11), we are dealing
with the inhabitants who are addressed as the daughter of Zion. Only Heb. 12:22
and Rev. 14:1 use the name independently.
2. (a) In the Synoptics and Acts Jerusalem frequently denotes simply the place,
in order to locate an event (Lk. 13:4), to name the starting point or destination of a
journey (Lk. 10:30), or to emphasize the importance of an event because even the
inhabitants of the capital have become aware of it (Mk. 1:5; Matt. 4:25; Lk. 6:17).
(b) However, a theologically significant idea is often linked with the use of the
geographical name. To the theocratically minded Jew Jerusalem is God’s choice
as focus of the world. This theocratic conception means that it is not men but
Yahweh alone who rules. He exercises his sovereignty through two institutions:
the priesthood, or the Zadokite high priest, and the scribes, the Rabbis. Thus,
according to Ps. 48:2, Jerusalem is “‘the city of the great King” (Matt. 5:35), where
the temple stands in which the true and only valid sacrificial service can be main-
tained. Therefore, people go to Jerusalem (Lk. 2:22 ff.), to “the holy city” (Matt.
4:5; 27:53), because it is there that the house of God is situated (cf. Lk. 2:46, 49),
which is indissolubly linked to the theocratic institution of the priesthood.
The other theocratic institution, the spiritual authority which knows and ex-
pounds the scriptures and therefore the will of God, is also situated in Jerusalem.
The priests who supervise the correct performance of the ritual and the scribes who
are responsible for the proper observance of the — law, are the representatives of
these two establishments. Therefore ‘‘scribes from Jerusalem’’ appear in different
parts of Palestine in the fulfilment of their duties (Mk. 3:22; 7:1).
(c) Because Jerusalem has this theocratic significance, it plays a decisive role in
the events of the passion. Jesus had to go to Jerusalem in order to fulfil his mission
there at the centre of the world of OT Jewish faith (Matt. 16:21; Lk. 9:31). There
he confronted the two theocratic institutions: the priests as functionaries of the cult
(cf. Lk. 19:45 ff.) and the scribes as keepers of the Mosaic tradition (Matt. 23).
Therefore, it was not a matter of no significance where Jesus suffered, died, was
buried and rose again. His sacrifice only made sense and was only effective in
Jerusalem (Mk. 10:33 f.). But the paradox consists in the fact that the sacrifice was
rejected by the theocratic institutions while accepted by God, as the accounts of the
resurrection testify (cf. also Mk. 8:31). Hence, Jerusalem is once described as the
home of the opponents of Jesus, who are seeking to kill him (Mk. 11:18). From the
theological point of view, however, Jerusalem is the setting in which the institutions
of the Jewish faith, the cult and the law, are taken up in Jesus’ actions (Mk. 11 :15—
17) and teaching (Mk. 11:18) and are judged by God himself in the crucifixion.
‘*As a place of prayer the temple should reflect the attitude that a man has nothing
to achieve or offer to God; consequently it should be open to all men. In this way
the whole principle of legalism is fully overcome” (E. Schweizer, The Good News
according to Mark, 1971, 233).
3. Jerusalem is particularly important in the theology of Luke. “‘At the beginning
(1:5-25) and at the end (24:53) [of Luke’s Gospel] there are references to events
327
JERUSALEM
which took place in the temple. The promise given to the ancient people of God is
fulfilled in the history of Jesus and His Church. The true Israel assembles in the
holy place’ (E. Lohse, TDNT VII 331). Acts goes further in this direction, in that
Jerusalem is the place which “‘links the history of Jesus with the beginning of that
of the community, cf. Ac. 10:39; 13:27, 31” (E. Lohse, TDNT VII 335). Hence,
Jesus’ disciples, to whom he had appeared after his resurrection, remained at his
express command in Jerusalem (Lk. 24:49, 52), to wait for the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4; 2:1 ff.). In accordance with their commission they proclaimed
the divine events to all peoples beginning from Jerusalem (Lk. 24:47; Acts 5:20 f.).
They took over the functions both of the scribes and of the servants of the temple
(Lk. 24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1 ff.; 5:25, 42), by offering praise to God in the temple
as the true daily sacrifice. The city remains the focus of the world and the city of
God’s people. The so-called apostolic council gathered within its walls (Acts 15:1 ff. ;
21:18). Emissaries went out from Jerusalem (Acts 8:14; 11:22, 27) and returned
there (19:21; 21:15).
4. One must mention, however, another train of thought in the Synoptics which
corresponds to the OT prophetic message (see above oT 3 (c)) that Jerusalem is the
evil city. It kills the messengers of God (Matt. 23:37 ff. par. Lk. 13:34 ff.). A
prophet is nowhere more in danger than in Jerusalem (Lk. 13:33). The city does
not recognize what belongs to its peace (Lk. 19:42). Its inhabitants have not wanted
to be gathered (Matt. 23:37). Therefore, it comes under judgment (Lk. 19:43 f.)
which will be carried out by means of foreign peoples (Lk. 21:20). Jerusalem will
be destroyed (Matt. 23:38; Lk. 21:24). Therefore the discerning should weep (Lk.
23:28 ff.). The judgment of Jerusalem begins when the veil in the temple is torn in
two (Matt. 27:51 par. Mk. 15:38) and the graves outside the city open (Matt.
27:52 f.). But something new arises from the ruins. Jesus will return to the des-
troyed city and be greeted with the cry which welcomes the messiah (Matt. 23:39,
citing Ps. 118: 26).
5. (a) In Jn. Jerusalem is not only the scene of the passion but also the place
where Jesus reveals his — glory. Many deeds and miracles take place in the city. Jn.
alone records that Jesus quite frequently came from Galilee to Jerusalem (2:13 ff.;
5:1 ff.; 7:10 ff.; 12:12 ff.). Finally, for Jn. Jerusalem is also the place where the
change from the old to the new — covenant took place.
(b) Paul was born at Tarsus (Acts 21:39; 22:3), but revisited it after his con-
version (Acts 9:30; 11:25). W. C. Van Unnik holds that Jerusalem was the scene
of his boyhood and upbringing (Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth,
1962). For Paul too Jerusalem is the centre of Christendom but in a different sense
from the Synoptics and Acts. The gospel went out from Jerusalem (Rom. 15:19),
and has brought into being a new unity between Gentiles and Jews, the ekklésia
(cf. Eph. 2:14; + Church). Paul emphasizes his agreement with the apostolic
council in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1 ff.). But he does not view this as the highest authority.
If he seeks out the apostles (cf. Gal. 1:18—20), it is out of brotherly love and respect;
for they preceded him chronologically (Gal. 1:17 f.). But he received his commission
and instructions like the others from the Lord himself (Gal. 1:1; 2:2). Because the
Gentile Christians have received a share in the spiritual blessings of the original
church in Jerusalem, it is natural for Paul that the Jerusalem church should be _
rendered ‘“‘service in material blessings’’ in the form of financial help (Rom. 15:27). ’
328
JERUSALEM
The objection that this “‘service for Jerusalem”’ (v. 31) was a kind of tax corres-
ponding to the Jewish temple tax is weakened by the fact that Paul expects only
freewill gifts as each individual sees fit (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8:7 f.; 9:7). We must,
rather, view this as, on the one hand, the legitimation of the Gentile Christian
churches towards Jerusalem and, on the other hand, the external documentation
of the interdependence of Gentile Christianity and the original Jerusalem church
(cf. also 2 Cor. 8:14 f.; 9:12; — Poor, art. ptochos NT 4(a)). On the place of Jerusa-
lem in Paul’s apostolic strategy and eschatological thinking see F. F. Bruce, ‘‘Paul
and Jerusalem’’, 7B 19, 1968, 3-25. Commenting on Rom. 11:26 (cf. Isa. 59:20 f.),
‘the Deliverer shall come out of Zion, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob’,
Bruce writes: ‘“‘Not only did the gospel first go out into all the world from
Jerusalem; Jerusalem (if this reading of Paul’s language is correct) would be the
scene of its glorious consummation”’ (op. cit., 25).
(c) In Rev. Jerusalem is described (albeit without mention of the name) as the
historical scene of the passion (11:8) and as involved in the events of the end. As
the wicked city (‘which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt’’) it will be ‘“‘tram-
pled over’’, while the temple and those who worship in it will be saved (11:1 ff.;
cf. Lk. 21:24). In 14:1 the OT name for the temple hill, Mount Zion, is used and it
is stated that at the end of the age the prophecy of Joel 2:32 (3:5 MT) will be
fulfilled on Mount Zion.
6. Apart from the topographical uses of the name indicated so far, there also -
occurs in the NT the idea of the heavenly Jerusalem.
(a) In Gal. 4:26 Paul speaks of Jerusalem above (hé and Ierousalém) which,
according to an allegorical interpretation, is the free woman who has given birth
to believers (— Abraham, arts. Sarra, Hagar and Isaak). In Jewish apocalyptic
tradition heavenly Jerusalem was the pre-existent place where God’s glory was
always present. For Paul it was also the place of freedom from the law. This
“Jerusalem above” forms a sharp contrast to “‘present Jerusalem”’ (hé nyn Ierousa-
lém), the earthly city which, equally on the basis of an allegory, is called the mother
of unbelievers (v. 25; — Parable, art. parabolé NT 9).
(b) Heb. 12:22 speaks of Jerousalém epouranios, heavenly Jerusalem, within
which Mount Zion is situated. “But this place is not just the goal of the pilgrimage
of the people of God which has no abiding city on earth (13:14). The community
has already come to Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem is the city
in which the new diathéké has been made through the blood of Jesus” (E. Lohse,
TDNT VII 337; — Covenant).
(c) In Rev. 3:12; 21:2 “new Jerusalem”’ is described as a heavenly city. At the
end of the age it will descend from heaven as the bride of the exalted Christ, and
receive as its citizens all those who have been marked as conquerors (3:12). This
beautiful city (21:2, 10 f.) which has descended to earth is of vast extent (v. 12 f.).
But one thing is absent from it: the temple, “for its temple is the Lord God the
Almighty and the Lamb” (v. 22). This view forms a contrast with Jewish expecta-
tion in which it is the temple which marks the focal point of heavenly Jerusalem.
—» David, — Israel, — Temple, — Solomon H. Schultz
(a). Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 1967; M. Avi- Yonah, Jerusalem,
1960; E. Bevan, Jerusalem under the High Priests, 1924; F. F. Bruce, ‘“‘Paul and Jerusalem’’, TB 19,
329
JERUSALEM/JESUS CHRIST
1968, 3-25; M. Burrows, “Jerusalem”, JDB II 843-66; G. Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways:
Studies in the Topography of the Gospels, 1935; L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the
Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, 1970; G. Fohrer and E. Lohse, Sion,
lerousalém etc. TDNT VII 292-338; R. Furneaux, The Roman Siege of Jerusalem, 1973; J. Jeremias,
Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1969; K. Kenyon, “‘Excavating Jerusalem”, BA 27, 1964, 34-52;
Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History, 1967; and Digging up Jerusalem, 1974; C. Kopp,
The Holy Places of the Gospels, 1963, 249-417; J. Munck, “‘Paul and Jerusalem’’, Paul and the
Salyation of Mankind, 1959, 182-308; A. Negev, ed., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy
Land, 1972; M. Noth, “‘Jerusalem and the Israelite Tradition”, The Laws in the Pentateuch and
Other Studies, 1966, 132-44; A. Parrot, The Temple of Jerusalem, 1957; J. B. Payne, ‘‘Jerusalem’’,
ZPEB Ill 459-95; N. W. Porteous, ‘“Jerusalem-Zion: the Growth of a Symbol’’, Living the
Mystery, 1967, 93-111; J. M. Roberts, ““The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition’, JBL 92, 1973,
329 ff.; J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 1952; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem: The Topography,
Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, I-II, 1908; A. Stoger, ““Jerusalem’’,
EBT II 409-19; W. C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of Paul’s Youth, 1962.
(b). A. Alt, “Jerusalems Aufsteig’”’, ZDMG 1925, 1 ff.; R. Bach and W. Schmauch, ‘‘Jerusalem’’,
EKL It 257 ff.; H. Bardtke, ““Der Tempel von Jerusalem’, TLZ 11, 1972, 801 ff.; E. Fascher,
‘“Jerusalems Untergang in der urchristlichen und altkirchlichen Uberlieferung’’, TLZ 89, 1964,
81 ff.; H. Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion, 1974; H. Guthe, ‘“Jerusalem’’, RE VIII 666-93; and Die
griechisch-romischen Stddte des Ostjordanlandes, 1918; J. Jeremias, ‘‘Lade und Zion’’, in H. W.
Wolff, ed., Probleme biblischer Theologie. G. von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, 1971; M. Join-Lambert,
Jérusalem Isaraélite, Chrétienne, Musalmane, 1958; H. Kosmala, ‘‘Jerusalem”’, BHHW II 820 ff. ;
M. Krupp, Vergesse ich dein Jerusalem, 1962; E. Lohmeyer, Galilaa und Jerusalem, FRLANT 52,
1936; F. Maas and J. Weigelt, ‘“Jerusalem’”’, RGG® III 593 ff.; T. Maertens, Jérusalém cité de Dieu,
1954; W. Schmauch, Orte der Offenbarung und der Offenbarungsort im Neuen Testament, 1956, 81-
121; K. L. Schmidt, ‘Jerusalem als Urbild und Abbild’’, Eranos Jahrbuch 18, 1950, 207-48; J.
Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem, Jahwes Konigssitz. Theologie der heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament,
1963; E. Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 1957; O. H. Steck, Friedenvor-
stellungen im Alten Jerusalem, Psalmen, Jesaja, Deuterojesaja, 1972; L.-H. Vincent, ‘‘Les noms de
Jérusalem”’, Memnon 6, 1913, 88-124; L.-H. Vincent and F.-M. Abel, Jérusalem Recherches de
Topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, 1 Jérusalem antique, 1912; IL Jérusalem nouvelle, 1914-24;
L.-H. Vincent and A.-M. Steve, Jérusalem de I’ Ancien Testament, 1, Archéologie de la Ville, 1954;
II-III Archéologie du Temple. Evolution historique et monumentale de la Ville, 1956.
Jesus Christ, Nazarene, Christian
The name Jesus Christ actually consists of a proper name, Jesus, and title, Christ,
which are linked in a new and unique way. It is thus a formula which expresses
the faith of the earliest Christians in Jesus of Nazareth as their Master and Lord,
Saviour-King and the universal Redeemer promised by God to his people Israel.
This formula achieved a permanent central significance for all subsequent genera-
tions of Christians as an appropriate statement of the object of their faith. In view
of this, it is necessary to deal first with the name Jesus and the related historical and
theological questions. We shall then turn to the title, Christ, ascribed to Jesus of
Nazareth by his disciples, and finally focus on Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ.
"Inaovs "Inagobdc (lésous), Jesus.
oT /ésous is the Gk. form of the OT Jewish name YéSua‘, arrived at by transcribing
the Heb. and adding an -s to the nom. to facilitate declension. Yésua‘* (Joshua)
seems to have come into general use about the time of the Babylonian exile in place
A ft
of the older Y°hdéstia‘. The LXX rendered both the ancient and more recent forms
330
JESUS CHRIST
of the name uniformly as Jésous. Joshua the son of Nun, who according to the
tradition was Moses’ successor and completed his work in the occupation of the
promised land by the tribes of Israel, appears under this name (cf. Exod. 17:8-16;
24:13; 32:17; 33:11; Num. 11:27 ff.; 13:8; 14:6—-9, 30-38; 27:18; 21 ff.; Deut.
31:3, 7, 8, 14f., 23; 34:9; and the Book of Joshua. It 1s the oldest name containing
the divine name Yahweh, and means “Yahweh is help” or ““Yahweh is salvation”
(cf. the vb. ya¥a‘, help, save). Joshua also appears in one post-exilic passage in the
Heb. OT (Neh. 8:17) as Yésua‘ the son of Nun, and not as in the older texts,
Y°hoStia‘.
Among Palestinian Jews and also among the Jews of the dispersion the name Jesus
was fairly widely distributed in the pre-Christian period and in the early part of the
Christian era. According to Aristeas 48 f. (2nd cent. B.c.; more exact dating dis-
puted), it was borne by two of the Palestinian scholars who were engaged on the
translation of the Heb. Pentateuch into Gk. in Alexandria. We are probably led
further back still, chronologically, by Jesus ben Sirach, the author of the Book of
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) in the Apocrypha (cf. Sir. 50:27). The Jewish historian
Flavius Josephus, who lived in the Ist cent. A.D. and came from a Palestinian
priestly family, names no fewer than 19 bearers of the name Jesus in his volumin-
ous writings in Gk. These come both from the ancient and the recent history of his
people and about half were contemporaries of ‘‘Jesus the so-called Christ’? whom
he also mentions (Ant. 20, 9, 1). The name also occurs about this time, however, in
numerous non-literary Jewish texts, among them inscriptions on graves (at Leonto-
polis or Tell el-Yehudieh north east of Cairo, ZNW 22, 1923, 283) and on ossuaries
from the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Some of these are written in Heb. or Aram.,
others in Gk. One Aram. example bears the name YéSua‘ bar Y*hésép, Joshua
son of Joseph (E. L. Sukenik, Jiuidische Grdber Jerusalems um Christi Geburt, 1931,
19 f., see also the illustrations).
NT 1. The NT readily fits into this picture which shows the name Jesus widely
spread among the Jews at the time of Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples. Thus
in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (3:29) it is borne by one of his ancestors, without the
fact being noted as anything extraordinary. Col. 4:11 mentions a Jewish Christian
Jesus, who according to the custom of the time and perhaps also as a Roman citizen
bore a second non-Semitic name, Justus. In the light of what has already been said
it is natural that Joshua should also appear in the NT as “‘Jesus”’ (Acts 7:45; Heb.
4:8). There are fairly clear indications that even Barabbas, the Zealot between whom
and Jesus Pilate asked the people to choose, had Jesus as his first name. The textual
tradition of Matt. 27:16 f. makes clear that the connection of the name with this
man was felt at a relatively early period to be a difficulty; at least it is suppressed
by the majority of MSS, including some ancient and valuable ones. Examples of
similar interference with the original text can be seen, or are probable, in a whole
range of other NT passages, among them those where the combined tradition no
longer shows the name Jesus (cf. alongside Lk. 3:29; Acts 7:45; 13:6; Col. 4:11
especially Mk. 15:7; Phlm. 23 f.; cf. A. Deissmann, in G. K. A. Bell and A. Deiss-
mann, eds., Mysterium Christi, 1930, 18 ff.). The motive here is clearly deep
reverence for the name Jesus; it is felt that it can be permitted to no one other than
Jesus as “the pioneer and perfecter of our faith’? (Heb. 12:2). Reverence for the
331
JESUS CHRIST
name Jesus had as its logical outcome — and that very rapidly — the almost general
renunciation on the part of Christians of its further secular use. But it is no less
significant that by the end of the Ist cent. the name Jesus had become uncommon
as a personal name among the Jews too. In its place the OT name Y*hdéStia‘ re-
appeared with a wide distribution, accompanied by Jasén as the Gk. equivalent
among the Jews of the dispersion among whom, in the course of assimilation, the
name had already been taken up for a long time (cf. Aristeas 49; Josephus Ant. 12,
10, 6). In the same context belongs the fact that Talmudic Judaism soon accustomed
itself, when it was obliged to name Jesus of Nazareth, to referring to him as Yesu
and not as Yésua‘. Although the reason for this may lie in the purely external fact
that the Christians referred to their Lord as Yesié (giving up the a‘ of the basic
Heb. form), it is also an expression, not only of Jewish antipathy, but also of how
far this name, among all names, had become unique to the Christians.
2. According to Matt. 1:21 and Lk. 1:31, Jesus’ name was determined by heavenly
instruction to the father (Matt.) or the mother (Lk.). Matt. in this context also
gives an interpretation of the name Jesus. In passing, it describes the future task of
Mary’s son as to “‘save his people from their sins.’ This interpretation is certainly
connected with the meaning of the name Y°hdsua‘ (formed from the divine name
and sua‘, from the root ys‘) which, as we have shown, has a continuing life in the
Gk. Tésous: ““Yahweh is our help” or ‘““Yahweh is our helper” (see M. Noth, Die
israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischer Namengebung,
1928, 154). That the meaning of the name was thoroughly well known at this period
is attested by the Alexandrian Jewish exegete and philosopher of religion, Philo,
when he interprets Joshua’s name as follows: Jésous sotéria kyriou, Jesus means
salvation through the Lord (Mut.Nom. 121). Although OT passages like Ps. 31
(30 LXX):8; 1301129 LXX):8 may therefore have influenced the form of Matt.’s
words in the narrowing of salvation to the forgiving of the people’s sins, their
originality is obvious: they attribute to Jesus what was formerly reserved for God.
The same understanding of the name Jesus and a corresponding testimony probably
lies behind Lk. 2:11, where the — angel of the Lord on the night of Jesus’ birth
announced him to the shepherds as s6otér, saviour. In this regard one must not over-
look the fact that it is particularly in Lk. that witness is borne to Jesus as the
saviour of sinners (cf. Lk. 15) and that the angel’s message (2:11) no doubt
looks back to Lk. 1:76. In both places, each completely independent of the other,
we have before us a very early christology, with a similar theological approach to
Phil. 2:9. It is clear that as far as they are concerned the name Jesus already
contains, in the form of a promise, what is later fulfilled in the title Lord applied
to the risen and glorified Jesus of Nazareth for the salvation of all mankind. This 1s
clearly something quite different from Barn. 12:8 ff. with its typological interpre-
tation of certain traits in the biblical picture of Joshua with reference to Jesus of
Nazareth, even though it is on the ground that both have the same name in GK.
In the former case we are in the presence of early kerygmatic tradition; in the
latter of theological and apologetical reflection. K. H. Rengstorf
| Navapnvoc (Nazarénos), Nalwpaioc (Nazoraios), Naza-
Nacapnvos rene, from Nazareth.
332
JESUS CHRIST
1. Since there were many bearers of the name Jesus it was necessary to distinguish
between them by means of some additional name. It is therefore quite within the
bounds of the ordinary that Jesus is sometimes denoted in the gospels as the son of
Joseph (Lk. 3:23; 4:22; Jn. 1:45; 6:42) or even as the son of Mary (Mk. 6:3).
The latter is evidently after the death of Joseph. This form of distinction never-
theless may carry more local colouring. Alongside it and beyond it the designation
of Jesus as Nazarénos or Nazoraios achieved importance and lasting significance.
In the textual tradition the two designations are sometimes mixed. This compels
the conclusion that for the writers there was no difference in meaning between them.
Nevertheless their juxtaposition requires a few comments.
2. Mk. consistently used Nazarénos (1:24; 10:47 v.l. Nazoraios; 14:67; 16:6).
Lk. 4:34 no doubt depends on Mk. 1:24 and the Gospel contains Nazarénos at one
other point in the material peculiar to itself (24:19 with v./.). Otherwise, especially
in Acts, Luke consistently uses Nazéraios (Lk. 18:37; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14;
22:8; 26:9) and by this procedure expresses the fact that for him the two words
mean the same. Matt. (2:23; 26:71) and Jn. (18:5, 7; 19:19, i.e. only in the passion
narrative) only have the second form. Apart from the Gospels and Acts, neither
word occurs in the NT. As far as their sense is concerned, for Matt. (cf. 2:23 with
21:11), Luke (Acts 10:38) and Jn. (1:45) they clearly mean that the Jesus thus
referred to came from Nazareth in Galilee. The geographical connection of the two
words with Galilee is supported in different ways by Matt. 26:69; 26:71; and Acts
24:5; 1:11. As a term to denote Christians in Gk. areas (Acts 24:5), Nazéraios
seems to have disappeared quite early in favour of Christianos (Acts 11:26), while
it was retained in this sense in Jewish areas and survives today in Heb. nosri as a
designation for one who believes in Jesus. There have been similar sounding terms
for Christian elsewhere in the Near East from ancient times on. Nevertheless, they
do not necessarily rest on the direct influence of Jewish Christian or even of Jewish
tradition, but result from the fact that the Syrian church took over Nazoraios from
NT Gk. as a loanword into its own language and passed it on to its non-Christian
environment.
3. The linguistic connection of both words with the place name Nazaret, Naza-
reth or Nazara (Matt. 4:12; Lk. 4:16) in Matt., Lk. and Jn. has been frequently
and strongly contested from M. Lidzbarski on. It is now clear that the thesis that
Nazareth the place is a pure invention because a place name was necessary to
correspond to Nazoraios in the Jesus tradition can no longer be entertained. The
name has appeared as nsrt initially in a Jewish inscription, probably from a syna-
gogue, in Caesarea, dated from the period after Hadrian, so that there is at last a
piece of early Jewish evidence for the existence of the place as a Jewish settlement (M.
Avi-Yonah, “‘A List of Priestly Courses from Caesarea’, /srael Exploration Journal
12, 1962, 137 ff.). But the philological derivation of Nazoraios from Nazareth by H.
H. Schaeder, now also supported by Ruth Stiehl, still fails to find unanimous agree-
ment. Recently a new root has been found for the use of Nazoraios in a piece of
Haggadic theologizing, conceptually thoroughly refined, and connected on the
one hand with Isa. 42:6 ff.; 49:6 ff. and on the other with Isa. 11:1. It is thought,
to do justice to the facts, that on the one hand the word refers to Christians (they
are those who are kept) and on the other to Jesus (he is the néser, the ‘‘shoot from
the stump” of Isa. 11 with all its implications for the future) (B. Gartner).
333
JESUS CHRIST
Nevertheless, it should be regarded as methodologically questionable to wish to
explain Nazoraios without reference to Nazarénos. The most likely solution is that
we have in both words the same assertion in the form of a derivation from nsrt, the
only difference being that in Nazarénos we have a pure Gk. formation, whereas in
Nazoraios an additional Aram. element is used which expresses belonging (cf. Ruth
Stiehl).
But however the problem of the relationship of the two designations to the place
name may or may not be resolved, the contexts almost unanimously reveal that
both words in the NT have essential undertones of dissociation and at the same
time contempt. The best commentary one can refer to is Nathaniel’s rhetorical
question to Philip, ““Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (Jn. 1:46). At all
events, for all the witnesses, Jesus’ origins in Nazareth are a sign of his lowliness.
Nobody understood this as well or emphasized it as unmistakably as Jn., when in
his account the description of Jesus as Nazoraios found its place in the inscription
for his cross on the initiative of the Roman procurator (19:19). Here finally, so to
speak, the reader’s attention is once again drawn to the fact that Jesus’ origins in
a place without status or prestige in the surrounding world formed a glaring con-
trast to the claim with which he had appeared before them. K. H. Rengstorf
ae Ss Xpiatoc (Christos), Christ; ypiw (chrid), spread, (in
| __ Xpotds | biblical Gk.) anoint; Meaaiac (Messias), Messiah.
Christ is derived via the Lat. Christus from the Gk. Christos, which in the LXX and
the NT is the Gk. equivalent of the Aram. m°Siha’. This in turn corresponds to the
Heb. masiah and denotes someone who has been ceremonially anointed for an
office (> Anoint). The Gk. transliteration of m*siha@ is Messias, which like Jésous
is made declinable by the added -s. The word messiah, however, occurs only twice
in the Gk. NT, only in Jn. 1:41; 4:25. On both occasions it is translated, no doubt
by the evangelist himself, as Christos. On both occasions it refers to Jesus of
Nazareth. The LXX does not use the foreign word but, like the NT (with the
exception of the passages mentioned), consistently employs the corresponding Gk.
word. The word, therefore, was not first coined by the Christians. In using it the NT
authors and their sources were clearly taking over a word and concept which were
already available and current in the pre-Christian period. This state of affairs is
borne out by, among other things, the OT apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings.
CL The Gk. word comes from chriein, to rub lightly, spread (over something) and
requires, apart from its use in the NT, more precise information about what is
used. It can be done with oil, as for example with a human body after bathing (as
early as Homer), but also with poison, as in the preparation of arrows for battle
(also Homer), paint, whitewash (cf. also however Jer. 22:14), or even cosmetics.
Basically the word describes a thoroughly secular, everyday process, and has no
sacral undertones at all. Naturally this is true for Gk. ears also of the verbal adj.
christos derived from it. It characterizes an object or a person as rubbed or smeared
with whitewash, cosmetics, paint etc., and in given cases anointed. It is anything
but an expression of honour. Where it refers to people, it even tends towards the
disrespectful. This is certainly the reason why, on the one hand, in non-Christian
334
JESUS CHRIST
circles Christos, in its reference to Jesus, was soon confused with the Gk. name
Chréstos (pronounced Christos with long i), and why, on the other hand, the Jewish
translator of the Bible, Aquila, thought it right in his Gk. version of the OT to
render mdsiah or m*siha’, not by christos but by éleimmenos from aleiphein which,
unlike chriein, always means to — anoint. In any case, the meaning of the root is
an essential condition for christos, as used of Jesus of Nazareth, to have been able
so disproportionately quickly and so completely to acquire the character of a
proper name. Nevertheless, one must not overlook in this connection the fact
that the Heb. vb. masah, for which chriein is the LXX equivalent, seems to be
fundamentally connected with fat or oil in the sense of to grease (with oil) (E.
Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im alten Orient, BZAW 87,
1963, 9 f.).
oT 1. In the OT two office bearers are expressly described as m@Siah i.e. as anointed
(with oil): the high priest as the one responsible for the official cult (— Priest)
and the — king. The reason for this pairing lies in the fact that in both cases the
anointing, corresponding to its character as a legal act, is as essential for the
conferring of the authority connected with the office as it is for the resulting
responsibility before God as the God of Israel. However, only the figure of the
king has to be reckoned as messianic in the sense of specific messianic expectation.
This is not altered by the fact that in the documents from Qumran (on the basis of
Zech. 4:1 ff., 11 ff.) there is once again talk of the coming of two men anointed of
the Lord (see further below) and that in the NT picture of Jesus as messiah along-
side the kingly features expressly priestly features are not lacking (— Priest).
2. The expectation is ultimately related to the idea of the kingship and the sover-
eign kingly rule of God on the basis of the OT revealed faith. The varying judg-
ments on the monarchy in | Sam. 8-11 notwithstanding, it is difficult not to come
to the conclusion that the institution of the monarchy, when it came to it, binds
on the king for the time being a special responsibility for the things of God. This is
clear from the censures which the pious historians of the OT passed on individual
kings of Israel or Judah, according to whether or not they had ruled and lived
consistently with faith in God as the one true God. The crucial factor is no doubt
the element of responsibility in the affairs of God on the basis of transferred power.
This must be so if, after the Davidic kings to whom must be ascribed considerable
significance for the development of the messianic expectation, like Saul before them,
a foreigner such as the Persian king Cyrus (Isa. 45:1) can be described as God’s
anointed, i.e. ma@Siah. He, like them, is one of God’s chosen instruments in the
pursuit of God’s universal aim of the salvation of all people through the people
he has made his own possession. Recognition of the divine freedom implied here
is all the more essential, as the expectation of a messianic, kingly saviour figure
was clearly associated from an early date with the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:8 ff.).
A far-reaching influence on the development of the idea of the messiah as a
historical figure of increasingly supernatural dimensions was the increasingly vivid
memory of the magnificent and successful period of — David’s rule, the first king
from Judah (cf. Isa. 9:2-7 [MT 1-6]; 11:1 ff.; Mic. 5:2-6 [MT 1—5]). Whether and
how far we have also to reckon with influence on the expectation from the pre-Davidic
priest-kings of — Jerusalem, which David captured and made his capital (2 Sam.
335
JESUS CHRIST
5:6 ff.; 6:1 ff.), cannot be decided with certainty. Nevertheless, it may be acknow-
ledged that there are certain “‘sacral’’ elements in the OT picture of the messiah,
as in that of later Judaism, which would be best explained on this basis. However
this may be, it cannot seriously be doubted that the dominant motif in the idea of
the messiah is the kingly one, and that all other motifs are secondary to it.
3. It is all the more important to emphasize this because, with respect to the
practice of anointing in Israel in the early period, it is necessary to make careful
historical and terminological distinctions. According to recent investigations
(especially those of E. Kutsch), although the anointing of the king and the anointing
of the high priest (or originally of all the priests?) are similar in form, their life-
setting was entirely different. The background of both was ancient oriental custom.
Nevertheless, the anointing of the Judaic kings seems to have been (even and
precisely when it was performed by representatives of the people; cf. 2 Sam. 2:4 ff. ;
5:3) essentially associated with the gift and with the solemn ritual transfer of
authority, power and honour (Heb. kabéd; Gk.; doxa; — Glory). The anointing
gave the one anointed a position of power and the right to exercise it. It also
brought him corresponding respect, together with honour and on occasion also
wealth. On the other hand, there is much to support the idea that the anointing of
the priests was first and foremost a cultic purification with the object of enabling
the priests to conduct valid worship.
4. In this context it is worthwhile considering further the description of the
Persian king Cyrus as the anointed of God (Isa. 45:1), even though he had clearly
not been anointed as king in accordance with (Israelite) Judaic custom. We see
here a sublimation of the concept which makes it independent of the external act
by transferring the entire weight on to God’s appointment of the one designated by
the anointing. In this case the anointed one is no more and no less than the one
chosen in a special way by God and placed under his command. God’s anointed is
thus dependent on God as well as integrated into his plan in obedience to his will.
This helps to explain why the Judaic kings (contrary to the pattern of ancient sacral
monarchies elsewhere) together with the OT Jewish messiah never themselves
acquired divine features even in the so-called Enthronement Psalms, such as Pss.
2 and 110. As the Lord’s anointed, they remained in their kingship as dependent
on God as they were utterly responsible to him (cf. on Saul, 1 Sam. 12:3, 5; 24:6-
11; cf. also 9:1 ff. with 15:10 ff.; on David, 2 Sam. 19:22; 23:1; cf. also 1 Sam.
16:1 ff. with 2 Sam. 11-12; on Zedekiah, Lam. 4:20; on Cyrus, see above). On the
other hand, it follows from this that at any given moment the king, i.e. the actual
reigning monarch of Judah from the house of David, can be introduced in the Pss.
as God’s anointed without further special explanation (Pss. 18:50; 20:6; 28:8;
84:9; 89:38, 51; 132:10, 17; cf. also 1 Sam. 2:10; Hab. 3:13). However, in this
context also belongs the fact that — David (cf. 2 Sam. 3:18; 7:5), and his succes-
sors (— Solomon, | Ki. 3:7 ff.; 8:28 ff.; later kings not mentioned by name Ps.
89:39; cf. Pss. 86:2, 4, 16; 143:2), and even a post-exilic claimant like Zerubbabel
(Hag. 2:23; cf. Zech. 3:8) are called the — servants of God. This is thoroughly
consistent with what has already been said. Son (Ps. 2:7; 89:26 f.) and servant, in
so far as they serve to describe the relationship of the anointed one to God, are not
mutually exclusive. From God’s point of view they belong inseparably together.
However, it must be stressed that, because in the text before us it is impossible te
336
JESUS CHRIST
recognize kingly features, it is very difficult to give a precise answer to the question
whether or not the Servant Songs (Isa. 43:1 ff.; 49:1 ff.; 50:4 ff.; 52:13 ff.) refer
to a kingly figure as messiah. Hence, scholars are less and less inclined to allow an
essential connection with the expectation of a future saviour king. They tend to
explain them, as far as their original intention is concerned, in other ways (cf.
—> Son of God, art. pais theou). On the other hand, there is a basis for it in the idea
of responsibility under the claims of God among his people if even a prophet like
Elisha (1 Ki. 19:16; cf. however also Isa. 61:1) can appear in the ranks of the
anointed, and if this idea as such persisted until the Christian era (1QM 11:7; CD
2A2 E.):
5. It has been rightly pointed out that the OT exhibits no clear developments of
the messianic expectation. All that can be demonstrated is the presence of the
expectation as such in the passages already referred to and in others extending via
Jer. 23:5 ff. and Ezek. 34:23 f.; 37:24 f. (cf. 17:22 f.) to Haggai and Zechariah.
Until this point they exhibit a strange uniformity. (The “‘branch of David’’ intro-
duces a kind of golden age, but does it in the latter days, to a certain extent in the
form of the establishing of the kingly rule of God.) It is not until the Hel. period
that this is overtaken by a sharp materialization of the concept in the direction of
the expectation of an eschatological Jewish national ideal ruler figure who would
nonetheless transcend national frontiers. It seems that the colours at least in part
were taken from the picture of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans and introduced
into the older expectation orientated towards the memory of David. We see this
most clearly in Pss. Sol. 17:21 ff.; 18:5 ff. Here the specific concept of the messiah
also appears in fixed form. Significantly its association with the Davidic tradition
did not have the result that the messiah could only be imagined as coming from
the line of David. A notorious example of one who was no descendant of David is
Simeon ben Kosebah, whom no less a person than the leading Rabbi Akiba greeted
as Bar Kokhba, the “star out of Jacob”’ promised in Num. 24:17 and thus identified
him as messiah (c. A.D. 132; T. J. Taanith 4:8:68d; 48 ff.; Euseb., HE. 4, 6, 2;
on Bar Kokhba see S. Abramsky in Encyclopaedia Judaica IV 227-39). His collapse,
which severely shook messianism, may nevertheless have contributed to the fact
that in Judaism’s liturgical texts the hope of a messiah from the line of David has
persisted to this day, even if the expectation as such has undergone drastic trans-
formations. The latter, however, lie outside the scope of the present study.
6. However, the expectation of a Davidic messiah represents only one type of
messianism in the period between the exile and A.D. 135. Altogether it took a
variety of forms. It was influenced not only by — Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15 ff.) and
—> Elijah (Sir. 48:10; cf. K. H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, NTD 3*,
1972, on Lk. 9:51 ff.) but also in apocalyptic texts and traditions (Eth.Enoch, 2
Esd.) by the idea of a son of man (cf. Dan. 7:13 ff.; + Son of God etc., art. hyios tou
anthropou) as a bringer of salvation who is sometimes also thought of as pre-
existent. Even the expectation of a messianic high priest is not lacking. The bright-
ness of this hope is reflected very impressively in the texts that have been found by
the Dead Sea. It is they which leave no doubt that the messianic hope with which
Jesus and the primitive church were faced was anything but unified and unambi-
guous. This is a fact of great significance for judging correctly what is represented
in the NT as messianism.
337
JESUS CHRIST
NT |. Christos in the NT (— art. Jésous). The decisive feature of the NT against
the background of contemporary messianic expectation is summed up in the
thesis that the combined NT witness to Jesus of Nazareth, however varied in details,
is consciously christological. Wherever the NT is concerned with Jesus, it is con-
cerned with him as Christ, i.e. as Messiah. This includes the fact that, for the whole
of the NT, messianism no longer stands under the sign of expectation but under
that of fulfilment. Everywhere the Christ event is spoken of in the perfect or past
tense. The writings do indeed look into the future as well, sometimes very inten-
sively. But the One who is awaited comes as the One who has already come. He is
not someone unknown; he is as well known to those who await him as they are to
him (cf. Jn. 10:14).
2. It is significant that the essential unity of the proclamation of Christ with the
title messiah is established, objectively as well as subjectively, with the least am-
biguity in the witness of John which, however, comes relatively late in the NT. It is
attested particularly in Jn. 1:41 and 4:25. In both passages messiah and Christ
are expressly equated (cf. OT 2 above). Both passages lead to the conclusion that
we must ascribe to Palestinian Jews the fact that in the messiah the central concept
in Jewish messianic expectation has become the possession of the developing Hel.
church. It has found its way into the language of their worship and preaching, and
has established itself there. No doubt the transmission of this faith came about
through the transmission of confessional and catechetical summaries of the
message about Jesus. These were originally formulated in Aram. or Heb. on the
territory of the primitive church. Subsequently they were translated into Gk. as
the mission to the Gk. churches extended beyond the boundaries of Palestinian
Jewry. The best illustration of the process lies in 1 Cor. 15:1 ff. Here we have the
text of the gospel which Paul had transmitted to the Corinthians and which he
himself had previously received. Along with everything else we find Christos
without the article. Despite many hesitations, this reference to the messiah without
the def. art. must stem from the usage of contemporary Palestinian Jews (see further
1 Cor. 15:12 ff., 16 f., 20, 23; cf. Gal. 2:20 f.; 3:16; 5:1; 1 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 5:6, 8;
6:4, 9; 8:10, 34; and also 1 Pet. 2:21; 3:18; cf. K. H. Rengstorf, Die Auferstehung
Jesu, 1967°, 129 ff.). The influence of the LXX can be eliminated, for almost all
that occurs there is the phrase christos kyriou, the Lord’s, i.e. God’s, anointed.
Consequently, the Christian faith in Jesus, so far as it is expressed as faith in Christ,
has to be traced back to the earliest Palestinian Christianity. In the Gk. churches,
therefore, the word christos, when linked with Jesus, completed relatively quickly
the transition from an adj., which it is essentially, to a proper name. And in the
process it retained its traditional reference to Jesus’ status. Therefore, wherever it
appears, even as part of the name it refers to the majesty of Jesus.
3. The occurrence of Christos (without any art.) in the fragment of earlier keryg-
ma taken up by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 gives us a glimpse of a unique fact. The
tradition of the primitive church which may be seen here, certainly one of the
oldest fragments of tradition in the whole of the NT, finds no contradiction
between Jesus’ violent death on the — cross (cf. 1:18 “For the word of the cross. . .’’)
and the name of Christ ascribed to him. This is all the more remarkable, because
it seemed natural to the contemporaries of the early Christians that the collapse of
a messianic pretender was the decisive proof of the spuriousness of his own claims
338
JESUS CHRIST
and of the hopes centred on him by his followers (cf. Acts 5:36 f. with Mk. 15:29
par. Matt. 27:17 and the later judgment of the “‘son of the star’, Simeon ben Kose-
bah, as the “‘son of lies’’). We find the same situation as in the fragment quoted
in other pre-Pauline passages incorporated by the apostle into his own proclama-
tion, e.g. Rom. 4:25 (where paredothé certainly refers to the death of Jesus and not
to Judas’ betrayal), or Rom. 3:25 (with its reference to Jesus’ blood as a sin offering).
To mention nothing else, the same line is followed by all four NT evangelists when
they take over as part of the kerygma (most clearly in Jn. 18:36 f.; 19:19 ff.) the
inscription on the cross (cf. Matt. 27:37; Mk. 15:26; Lk. 23:36). This was intended
to expose Jesus as pseudo-king of the Jews, i.e. as pseudo-messiah, but the evange-
lists make it an involuntary proclamation of Jesus as messiah by his enemies,
because that was what God willed. This is expressed in the kerygma with the help
of the idea that Jesus, just because he was messiah/Christ, and not despite the
fact, had to suffer and die. Thus God expressly determined things in this way with
regard to Jesus’ messiahship. This is attested by the primitive formula of Lk. 24:26,
the predictions of suffering in the synoptic gospels (— Suffer), the Johannine say-
ings of Jesus like Jn. 3:14; 12:34, and not least by Jesus’ farewell discourse in Jn.
(Jn. 14-16; see further below). The clear impression we receive from all these
passages is that, when it represented itself as the community of Jesus, the primitive
church intended to represent itself simply as the messianic community. For in its
preaching of Jesus as messiah it was at the same time interpreting itself messianic-
ally in relation to its life, its historical origins and its aims. If at a relatively early
date Christians began to consider themselves as the — Israel of God (Gal. 6:16),
i.e. the true Israel, as distinct from Israel according to the — flesh (1 Cor. 10:18),
the rational and spiritual roots for this lie in the messianism that has just been
outlined. The messianism which was already to hand and which was linked with
Jesus was, therefore, neither spiritualized nor re-interpreted. Rather, it was taken
up and set out on a large scale. Paul attests the same for the Gk. churches when in
1 Cor. 15:25 he leaves the last event before the end in the form of the kingly rule
of the Christ/messiah. Naturally further passages in the Synoptic Gospels which
in any case were not intended for Jewish readers, form comparisons with Jesus as
—> king. Examples are the parable of the royal wedding (Matt. 22:1 ff.), the parable
of the judgment of the world (Matt. 25:31 ff.: the Son of man is king, vv. 31, 34,
40), and also a saying like Lk. 22:25 f. which explains the particular nature of
Jesus’ kingship in terms of his disciples’ self-sacrifice in the service of others.
The most surprising fact is the part played by Jesus’ messiahship in the latest of
the four Gospels, Jn. The crucial question throughout the whole book is always
that of a correct understanding of Jesus’ kingship, beginning with the conversation
between Jesus and Nathanael (Jn. 1:47 ff.; but cf. before that 1:19 f., 41, 45) via
6:1 ff. and 12:12 ff. (to mention but two passages) to the dialogue between Pilate
and Jesus (18:33 ff.) and that between Pilate and the chief priests (19:21 f.). In the
discussion with the Samaritan woman Jesus discloses his messiahship (4:25 f.). One
will not be mistaken if one recognizes in the solemn /ésous Christos the confessional
formula of John’s own church (17:3; cf. 1:17; 20:31; cf. further 1 Jn. 2:22; 4:2;
5:1; 2 Jn. 7). In this formula the second word has lost nothing of its predicative
character, and therefore ought really to be written with a small initial letter. Here
the primitive christological inheritance is preserved in all its splendour and without
339
JESUS CHRIST
any contraction. Jn. clearly lacks all the traditional illustrative material which charac-
terizes the picture of Christ in Rev. (the lion of the tribe of Judah, 5:5; the shoot of
David, 22:16; etc.). But that does not alter the fact that here too at the turn of the
century full continuity in christology is maintained with the primitive Palestinian
church. This was decisive for the impending attempts at conceptual formulations
of the catholic faith in Christ.
4. Naturally the messianic element in the NT faith in Christ and in the NT
confession of Christ is inseparable from that event which, in the witness of the NT,
is called the — resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Jesus’ resurrection is reckoned
as his resurrection as Christ/messiah (cf. Acts 2:31 with 1 Cor. 15:4, and also
Rom. 1:4). It appears everywhere as something done by God to the crucified and
buried Jesus (cf. Acts 2:36) and moreover as his vindication by God himself (cf.
Rom. 6:7 ff.; | Tim. 3:16). It is fully consistent, therefore, that in Jesus’ statements
about his suffering, the announcement of his death is always accompanied by that
of his resurrection. This is not so much intended to discredit the opponents who
refused to believe him and delivered him up to death on the cross as to secure his
messiahship, which seemed to be disproved by his death on the cross (cf. Lk. 24:26
with 24:19 ff.). One should not, therefore, underestimate the fact that the resurrec-
tion event, however it may be interpreted historically, has its proper place in
Jesus’ messiahship. The fact that the passage of the gospel into a non-Jewish
environment made no difference to this is so significant, because it not only illus-
trates how a Christian church consisting of former Jews and former Gentiles
understood itself, but in general it sheds a great deal of light on that church’s
relationship to history. In a formal way the church’s consciousness of the special
nature of its own origins in a historically unique event is here bound into a confes-
sion. This involves, however, not only the so-called Jesus of history in his un-
changeable historical form. It also expresses a permanent affirmation of the
spiritual heritage common to all Christians in ‘““Old Testament” history and revela-
tion, and at the same time decisively renounces all unhistorical religiosity and
preaching. What Paul writes in Rom. 9-11 about the relation of the Christian
church to Judaism presupposes a confident reliance upon the messiahship of Jesus
which God has legitimated just as much as does the expectation of a new heaven
and a new earth in Rev. (cf. especially 5:1 ff.; 22:16). This is linked to the risen and
exalted Jesus (cf. Rev. 1:5, 18), or the certainty that the coming of the — kingdom
of God is linked with Jesus as the Christ (Acts 28:31; Lk. 17:20 f.). To this extent
the whole of Christian preaching, which is conceived in principle in the NT as a
unity but carried out in detail in a variety of forms, has its source and its centre
everywhere in the messiahship of Jesus which God has confirmed.
5. Finally, the formula /ésous Christos leads to the question whether the linking
of Jesus’ name with the title of messianic dignity and honour was the work of his
church, in which it expressed its eschatological faith, or whether in any way Jesus
himself was responsible for it. This poses the problem of Jesus’ messianic conscious-
ness. Since it cannot be dealt with here in the necessary breadth, some few reflec-
tions may all the same lead to the indispensable minimum of conclusions which are
demanded.
(a) Since historical criticism began to occupy itself with the NT Gospels and the
tradition handled by the evangelists, it has always been maintained that the sources
340
JESUS CHRIST
are not sufficient to confirm the statement that Jesus himself had a messianic
consciousness. To support this view scholars today point not only to the kerygmatic
character of even the accounts of Jesus’ examination before the Sanhedrin with his
confession of messiahship, but also to the fact that one of the two main synoptic
sources, the so-called sayings source Q contains nothing that attributes messiah-
ship to Jesus, With respect to both reasons, however, one must now recommend
caution. On the one hand, even today Q still rests on a working hypothesis. On the
other hand, there is still the need to explain how the kerygma by itself arrived at
the idea of having Jesus represent himself to the Sanhedrin as the messiah if he
and his disciples did not regard him as the messiah during his lifetime. All the
same one should reckon with the possibility, on the evidence of the tradition that is
available to us, that Jesus himself neither developed a specific messianic programme
nor, and this is of the greatest importance, referred to himself in any form as
messiah. According to the narrative tradition, he simply permitted people to
attribute to him messianic titles like ““Son of David’ (Mk. 10:47 f. etc.; — Son),
without adopting an attitude of agreement or of denial towards them. Furthermore,
the picture of Jesus which is reflected in the tradition when critically analysed, leads
us to suppose that he conformed to none of the traditional messianic descriptions.
Thus he called in question by his person the attachment to himself of the current
messianic expectation of a political saviour-king, by his own followers. This appears
to extend to the correctness of all contemporary messianic expectations. Even an
event like Peter’s so-called confession at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13-23; Mk.
8:27-33; Lk. 9:18-22), accepting its historical reliability, does not take us funda-
mentally beyond this conclusion. It boils down to the fact that the events connected
with his passion and Easter would have been bound to appear quite differently in
the tradition, if at any point in time Jesus had given precise information about him-
self, where his messiahship was concerned. Finally one must add to the picture
that has already been drawn the fact that the tradition does not allow Jesus to
triumph over death and the grave as the man he was, but, in the case of his
resurrection, makes him the object of a mysterious direct action on the part of God.
Moreover, the tradition is never in the position to reveal this mystery, nor is it
ever inclined to. The result, without abandoning oneself to an exaggerated scepticism
with regard to the sources, 1s a fairly unanimous picture. It is described, very
imperfectly and in an unbalanced fashion, by the ambiguous phrase, the messianic
secret. Nevertheless, the phrase still points in a direction in which the answer to
the question posed at the outset is to be found.
(b) The problem can only be properly understood, 1.e. as it was in the tradition
and by Jesus himself, when account is taken of the fact that Jesus’ whole ministry
was deliberately concentrated on his immediate surroundings and within this
especially on his disciples. This means that one cannot talk of him apart from them,
and in particular that one cannot ask questions about his self-consciousness,
whatever form it took, without reference to them. This is all the more necessary
in view of the rdle of his disciples in the things “concerning Jesus of Nazareth”’
(Lk. 24:19), which may not have been a very significant episode but which all the
same was an episode. As the quoted passage itself suggests, the category of prophet
which has recently been invoked again though with strong qualifications to help
define Jesus’ self-consciousness (cf. E. Kasemann, “The Problem of the Historical
34]
JESUS CHRIST
Jesus’’, Essays on New Testament Themes, 1964, 15-47), would never have sufficed
to divest the history of Jesus of its episodic character, if it had stopped at his death.
It cannot be mere coincidence that the tradition contains no suggestion that he
himself used this category or the idea of his inspiration in connection with his own
person, or that he passed it on to his followers. In the mouth of the disciples on the
Emmaus road it is just as much the writer’s own attempt to understand Jesus as
are the other attempts in the tradition (cf. Mk. 6:14 ff. par. Matt. 14:1 f.; Lk.
9:7f.). For its part, the tradition makes clear that as far as it is concerned the only
proper attitude towards Jesus is that which the whole NT calls pistis, — faith
which involves simple trust. What is really remarkable about Jesus’ dealings with
his disciples is that he sought right from the beginning and continually thereafter
to bring them into this attitude which, because it leads of necessity to a particular
kind of behaviour, contradicts any mere theory about him and indeed radically
excludes it. The disciples themselves did not finally achieve this attitude or beha-
viour until after the Easter events. Nevertheless, it must be the person of Jesus and
the impression that the disciples received from him which were responsible for the
association of this attitude with the use of the category of messiah. But then we
can only deal with impressions which they received from the Jesus of history during
his lifetime (cf. Lk. 24:32). This must be reckoned to exclude the possibility that
the situation created by Easter was appropriate for laying down the foundation of a
messianic theory about Jesus. The new situation did not encourage the develop-
ment of ideas but final personal decisions and corresponding actions. This could
only come about if the picture of the risen Jesus and that of the earthly Jesus were
not contradictory but mutually interpretative on the ground of their connection
with him.
(c) The result, therefore, is that the remaining questions about Jesus’ self-
consciousness or self-understanding in relation to the category of messiahship must
be shown from the tradition itself to be wrongly posed. The only question to ask
would be about the traits in the person of Jesus which predisposed his disciples
after Easter to see no alternative to formulating their faith in him in the way they
did, in the context of the messianic hope of their people as it was expressed in the
scriptures and the traditions. The question is all the more important as the preach-
ing of the messiah by its reference to the office of the king of salvation, contained
particular elements predisposing it to become the crystallizing point of christology.
Nevertheless, this touches on a range of problems which cannot be dealt with here.
Enough has been said to show that it was the mystery of the person of Jesus which
was responsible for the disciples feeling themselves confronted by the question of
the messiah in the earthly Jesus. On the basis of their encounters with the risen
Jesus, the disciples finally answered it by the confession that he was the messiah
and that in him God has fulfilled his — promise to the house of — David and to
—> Israel of salvation for the whole of mankind in a manner that is nevertheless
only accessible to faith.
(d) Naturally the name Jesus Christ means more to Christianity than the
messianic status of a certain Jesus of Nazareth, in whom God fulfilled his promises
to the fathers. Every aspect of the salvation which God has intended for and bes-
towed upon the world is, for the whole of the NT, bound up in Jesus, in so far as
he is the Christ. In Jesus as the one who is the Christ “‘the whole fullness of deity
342
JESUS CHRIST
dwells bodily”? (Col. 2:9; — Fullness) for the salvation of all those who put their
trust in him and appropriate to themselves the fruit of his death and resurrection
(Rom. 4:24 f.). To express this a single title like Messiah or Christ is just not suffi-
cient. Therefore, when the NT kerygma expounds the salvation bound up in Christ,
it makes use of other titles of honour which are appropriate to the particular
reference. These emphasize in turn the side of his person or of his work on which
the particular title depends, like — Son of God, — Lord or also our Lord, Saviour
(— Redemption, art. s6z6), mediator (— Covenant, art. mesités). Nevertheless,
if Christ has been transformed from a title of honour to a part of Jesus’ name, this
corresponds to the essential feature in his historical appearance which at the same
time must be reckoned as the condition of his whole work as mediator of salvation:
his obedient submission to God’s will as manifested in the process of God’s self-
revelation in the history of the people of Israel. To this extent Jesus’ affirmation of
his messiahship, whether or not it was explicitly announced, is for the whole
kerygma the presupposition of his path to the cross. It is equally the presupposition
of his resurrection and exaltation on God’s part. This element in Jesus’ messiah-
ship, central for christology, is represented nowhere in the NT as clearly and at
the same time as comprehensively as in the christological hymn which Paul intro-
duced into his letter to the Philippians (Phil. 2:5 ff.; — Empty, art. kenos). Here
he describes Jesus’ path via the incarnation, the life of obedience and the death
of obedience on the cross to the resurrection and to exaltation at God’s side as the
path of Christ Jesus, i.e. of that messiah who is identical with Jesus of Nazareth.
K. H. Rengstorf
| Xpictiavéc | Xpiatiavéc (Christianos), Christian.
The identification of the messiah with Jesus of Nazareth brought the disciples the
name Christianoi. Compared with other names for the followers of Jesus, like
disciple or believer, the word is quite rare in the NT. By its whole formation it is a
word which defines the one to whom it is applied as belonging to the party of a
certain Christos, very much as Hérodianos is a technical term for the followers of
Herod (Mk. 3:6; 12:13; Matt. 22:16). Its use also presupposes that for the Gk.
environment of developing Christianity christos had taken on the meaning of a
proper name, a process which would have been facilitated by the resemblance to
the name Chréstos, pronounced Christos. According to Acts 11:26, Christianos
was first used for Christians in Syrian Antioch. This passage, like the two others in
which the word occurs in the NT (Acts 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16), leads us to suppose that,
being applied to Christians by outsiders, it contained an element of ridicule and
that in this it did not differ from the description Nazarénos or Naz6éraios (see above).
Like it and like many other names formed in the same way, it soon clearly became a
name which those called by it felt honoured to bear. K. H. Rengstorf
— Anoint, — Birth, — Confess, ~ God, — Present, — Proclamation, — Resur-
rection, — Son, — Spirit, — War, Revolution
On Jesus and the Quest of the Historical Jesus:
(a). P. Althaus, The So-Called Kerygma and the Historical Jesus, 1959; C. C. Anderson, Critical
Quests of Jesus, 1969; and The Historical Jesus: A Continuing Quest, 1972: H. Anderson, Jesus
343
JESUS CHRIST
and Christian Origins, 1964; C. K. Barrett, Jesus and the Gospel Tradition, 1967; H.-W. Bartsch,
ed., Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, Volumes I and II combined with enlarged Biblio-
graphy, 1972; F. W. Beare, The Earliest Records of Jesus, 1962; G. K. A. Bell, and A. Deissmann,
eds., Mysterium Christi: Christological Studies by British and German Theologians, 1930, see
especially Deissmann’s essay on ““The Name ‘Jesus’ ’’, 3-30; E. Best, The Temptation and the
Passion: The Markan Soteriology, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 2, 1965;
G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 1960; J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, 1973; C. E. Braaten
and R. A. Harrisville, eds., The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ: Essays on the New
Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1964; S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 1967; C. Brown,
Jesus in European Protestant Theology 1778-1860: A Study of Trends in Theological Method,
(Dissertation, Bristol) 1969; R. E. Brown, ‘“The Problem of the Virginal Conception of Jesus’’,
Theological Studies, 33, 1972, 3-34 (reprinted in The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection
of Jesus, 1973); F. F. Bruce, ‘“‘History and the Gospel”, Faith and Thought 93, 1964, 121-45; New
Testament History, 1969; Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament, 1974; and ‘‘Myth
and History’’, in C. Brown, ed., History, Criticism and Faith: Four Exploratory Studies, 1976,
79-100; R. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, 1934; and Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1958; H. J.
Cadbury, The Peril of Modernizing Jesus, 1937; E. C. Colwell, Jesus and the Gospel, 1963; H.
Conzelmann, Jesus: The classic article from RGG*® expanded and updated, 1973; O. Cullmann,
Jesus and the Revolutionaries, 1970; G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 1929; and The Words of Jesus,
Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language, 1902; H.
Daniel-Rops, Jesus in his Time, 1955; M. Dibelius, Jesus, 1949; C. H. Dodd, History and the
Gospel, 1938; The Founder of Christianity, 1970; and “The Portrait of Jesus in John and the
Synoptics’”’, in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr, eds., Christian History and
Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, 1967, 183-98; F. G. Downing, The Church and
Jesus: A Study in History, Philosophy and Theology, 1968; J. D. G. Dunn, ‘‘Jesus — Flesh and
Spirit: An Exposition of Romans I. 3-4”’, JTS New Series 24, 1973, 40-68; ‘“The Messianic Secret
in Mark’’, TB 21, 1970, 92-117; and Jesus and the Spirit, 1975; G. Ebeling, “‘Jesus and Faith’ and
“The Question of the Historical Jesus and the Problem of Christology”, Word and Faith, 1963,
201-46 and 288-304; A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, \-II, 1881; W. R.
Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis, 1964; and ‘“‘An Historical Essay on the
Humanity of Jesus Christ”, in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr, eds., op. cit.
101-26; W. Foerster, Jésous, TDNT III 284-93; R. T. France, ‘““The Authenticity of the Sayings
of Jesus”, in C. Brown, ed., op. cit.; and Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971; J. W. Fraser, Jesus
and Paul: Paul as Interpreter of Jesus from Harnack to Kiimmel 1974; E. Fuchs, Studies of the
Historical Jesus, 1964; R. H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus, 1954; E. J. Goodspeed,
A Life of Jesus, 1967; L. Goppelt, Jesus, Paul and Judaism: An Introduction to New Testament The-
ology, 1964; R. M. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 1961; J. J. Gunther, ‘““The Family of Jesus’,
EQ 46, 1974, 25-41; D. Guthrie, Jesus the Messiah, 1972; and “‘Jesus Christ’’, ZPEB III 497-583; C.
Gore, Jesus of Nazareth, 1929; B. Gustafsson, ‘““The Oldest Graffiti in the History of the Church ?”’
NTS 3, 1956-57, 65-69; F. Hahn, Mission in the New Testament, 1963; A. C. Headlam, The Life
and Teaching of Jesus the Christ, 1923; C. F. H. Henry, ed., Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord,
1966; A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man, 1964; and The Tradition about Jesus, 1969; M. D.
Hooker, “Christology and Methodology’’, NTS 17, 1970-71, 480-87; A. M. Hunter, Jnterpreting
the New Testament, 1900-1950, 1951; and The Work and Words of Jesus, 1954; J. Jeremias, The
Unknown Sayings of Jesus, 1957; and New Testament Theology, 1, The Proclamation of Jesus, 1971;
J. Jocz, The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, 19517; M. Kahler, The So-called Historical Jesus
and the Historic Biblical Christ, 1964; E. Kasemann, ‘“‘The Problem of the Historical Jesus’,
Essays on New Testament Themes, 1964, 15-47; L. E. Keck, A Future for the Historical Jesus,
1972; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972?; and Early Christian Doctrines, 1968*; J.
Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 1929; W. G. Kiimmel, The New Testament: The History of the
Investigation of its Problems, 1973; G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 1975, 13-309;
X. Léon-Dufour, The Gospels and the Jesus of History, 1968; H. K. McArthur, ed., In Search of the
Historical Jesus, 1970; H. Z. Maccoby, ‘‘Jesus and Barabbas’’, NTS 16, 1969-70, 55-60; C. C.
McCown, The Search for the Real Jesus, A Century of Historical Study, 1940; H. D. A. Major,
T. W. Manson and C. J. Wright, The Mission and Message of Jesus: An Exposition of the Gospels
in the Light of Modern Research, 1937; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 1935"; The Sayings
of Jesus, 1950; The Servant-Messiah, 1953; ‘“‘Materials for a Life of Jesus’’, Studies in the Gospels
344
JESUS CHRIST
and Epistles, edited by M. Black, 1962, 3-145; and “The Life of Jesus; some tendencies in present-
day research”, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube eds., The Background of the New Testament and its
Eschatology. In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1956, 211-21; C. F. D. Moule, ‘“‘Jesus in New
Testament Kerygma’”’, in O. Bocher and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas: Festschrift fiir
Gustav Stahlin, 1970, 15-26; F. Mussner, The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of St. John, 1967;
S. Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1961, 1964; R. C. Nevius, ‘‘The Use of the
Definite Article with ‘Jesus’ in the Fourth Gospel”, NTS 12, 1965-66, 81-5; G. Ogg, The Chrono-
logy of the Public Ministry of Jesus, 1940; G. Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, 1965; N. Perrin,
Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 1967; J. Peter, Finding the Historical Jesus, 1965; J. Reumann,
Jesus in the Church’s Gospels: Modern Scholarship and the Earliest Sources, 1970; N. H. Ridderbos,
Paul and Jesus, 1958; H. Riesenfeld, ““The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings’, in The Gospels
Reconsidered. A Selection of Papers read at the International Congress on the Four Gospels in 1957,
1960, 131-53 (reprinted in The Gospel Tradition, 1971); J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History
in Mark, 1957; and The New Quest of the Historical Jesus, 1959; J. Rohde, Rediscovering the
Teaching of the Evangelists, 1968; W. Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, 1905; and The Life
of Christ in Recent Research, 1907; F. Schleiermacher, The Life of Jesus, (1832) 1975; U. J.
Schultz, ed., Jesus in His Time, 1971; A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical
Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, 1954°; and The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, 1968;
E. Schweizer, ‘‘Mark’s Contribution to the Quest of the Historical Jesus’, NTS 10, 1963-64,
421-32; and Jesus, 1971; G. N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, 1974;
E. Stauffer, Jesus and his Story, 1960; N. B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels:
Some Basic Questions, 1964; D. F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (ET 1846),
ed., P. C. Hodgson, 1973; E. L. Sukenik, ““The Earliest Records of Christianity’, American
Journal of Archaeology, 51, 1947, 351-65; cf. with J. P. Kane, ‘“‘By No means ‘The Earliest
Records of Christianity’ ”’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 103, 1971, 103-8; E. F. Sutcliffe,
A Two Year Public Ministry, 1938; E. Trocmé, Jesus and his Contemporaries, 1973; F. T. Trotter,
ed., Jesus and the Historian. Written in Honour of Ernst Cadman Colwell, 1968; V. Taylor,
The Names of Jesus, 1953; The Life and Ministry of Jesus, 1954; and ‘‘Does the New Testament
Call Jesus ‘God’?”’, New Testament Essays, 1970, 83-89; H. E. W. Turner, Jesus Master and
Lord, 1953; and Jesus the Christ, 1976; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 1973; A. Vogtle, ‘“‘Jesus Christ”’,
EBT II 419-37; A. W. Wainwright, ““The Confession ‘Jesus is God’ in the New Testament’’,
SJT 10, 1957, 274-99; H. G. Wood, Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1960; W. Wrede, The Messianic
Secret, ET 1971; H. Zahrnt, The Historical Jesus, 1963.
(b). H.-W. Bartsch, ““Theologie und Geschichte in der Uberlieferung vom Leben Jesu” EvTh 32,
128 ff.; W. Beilner, Christus und die Pharisder 1959; P. Biehl, ““Zur Frage nach dem historischen
Jesus”, ThR Neue Folge 24, 1956-57, 54 ff.; J. Blank, Jesus von Nazareth, 1972; F.-M. Braun,
Jesus Christus in Geschichte und Kritik, 1950; H. Braun, Jesus, Themen der Theologie 1, 1970; F.
Bichsel, Jesus, 1947; M. Craveri, Das Leben des Jesus yon Nazareth, 1970; N. A. Dahl, ‘“‘Der histo-
rische Jesus als geschichtswissenschaftliches und theologisches Problem”, KuD 1, 1955, 104 ff., E.
Fuchs, Jesus. Wort und Tat, 1970; J. R. Geiselmann, ““Der Glaube an Jesus Christus: Mythos
oder Geschichte”’, TAR 126, 1946, 257-77 and 418-39, H. Gollwitzer, “‘Zur Frage der ‘Stindlosigkeit
Jesu’”’, EvTh 31, 1971, 496 ff.; E. Grasser, A. Strobel, R. C. Tannehill, W. Eltester, Jesus in
Nazareth, BZNW 40, 1972; W. Grundmann, Die Geschichte Jesu Christi, 1957; E. Haenchen,
““Vom Wandel des Jesusbildes in der frithen Gemeinde” in O. Bocher and K. Haacker, eds., op.
cit., 3-14; E. Jiingel, Paulus und Jesus, Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 2, 1962; K.
Kertelge, Riickfrage nach Jesus: Zur Methodik und Bedeutung der Frage nach dem historischen
Jesus, 1974; H. W. Kuhn, “‘Der irdische Jesus bei Paulus als traditionsgeschichtliches und theo-
logisches Problem’’, ZTK 67, 1970, 295 ff.; W. G. Kimmel, ‘“‘Jesusforschung seit 1950’’, T/R Neue
Folge 31, 1966, 15 ff. and 289 ff.; O. Kuss, “‘ ‘Bruder Jesus’. Zur ‘Heimholung’ des Jesus von
Nazareth in das Judentum’’, Miinchener theologische Zeitschrift 23, 1972, 284 ff.; F. Lentzen-
Deis, ““Der Glaube Jesu’’, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 80, 1971, 141 ff.; E. Lohse, ‘‘Die Frage
nach dem historischen Jesus in der gegenwartigen neutestamentlichen Forschung’, TLZ 87,
1962, 162-74; and Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesus Christi, 1964; T. Lorenzmeier,
‘‘Wider das Dogma von der Siindlosigkeit Jesu’’, EvTh 31, 1971, 452 ff.; M. Machoveé, Jesus fiir
Atheisten, 1972; W. Marxsen, “Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus’’, TLZ 87, 1962, 575-80;
K. Niederwimmer, Jesus, 1968; B. Rigaux, “‘L’Historicité de Jésus devant l’exégése récente’’,
RB 65, 1958, 481-522; J. Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus, 1970; and ‘‘Auf der Suche
be 345
JESUS CHRIST
nach einem neven Jesusbild’’, TLZ 98, 1973, 561 ff.; F. J. Schierse, ed., Jesus von Nazareth, 1972;
R. Schippers, Jezus Christus in het historisch Onderzoek, 1969; G. Schneider, Die Frage nach
Jesus, 1971; J. Schneider, ‘‘Der Beitrag der Urgemeinde zur Jesus-Uberlieferung im Lichte der
neuesten Forschung’’, TLZ 87, 1962, 401 ff.; F. Schnider, Jesus der Prophet, 1975; H. Schtirmann,
Das Geheimnis Jesus, 1972; E. Sjoberg, Der verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien, \955;
A. Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, \95\*® (fuller than ET The Quest of the
Historical Jesus); W. Trilling, Fragen zur Geschichtlichkeit Jesu, 1967°; A. Vogtle, ‘“‘Jesus Christus’’,
LTK V 619-53; and ‘‘Exegetische Erwagungen zum Wissen und Selbstbewusstsein Jesu’’, Gott
in Welt, Il, 1964, 608-66.
On Nazarene and Nazareth:
(a). W. F. Albright, ‘‘The Names ‘Nazareth’ and ‘Nazoraean’ ’’, JBL 45, 1946, 397 ff.; M. Black,
An Aramaic Aproach to the Gospels and Acts, 1967°, 197 ff.; The Serolls and Christian Origins:
Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament, 1961, 70 ff.; F. F. Bruce, Commentary
on the Book of Acts, NLC 1954, 69 f., 465; E. Grasser, ‘“‘Jesus in Nazareth (Mark VI. 1-—6a): Notes
on the Redaction and Theology of St Mark’’, NTS 16, 1969-70, 1-23; R. H. Gundry, The Use of
the Old Testament in St Matthew’s Gospel, 1967, 97-104; D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972,
86 ff.; C. Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, 1963, 49-86; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic,
1961, 195 f.; G. F. Moore, ‘‘Nazarene and Nazareth’, in F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, eds.,
The Beginnings of Christianity, I, 1920, 426-32; W. O. E. Oesterley, ‘‘Nazarene and Nazareth’’,
ExpT 52, 1940-41, 410 ff.; H. H. Schaeder, Nazarénos, Nazoraios, TDNT \V 874-79; K. Stendahl,
The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament, 19692, 103 f., 198 ff.
(b). P. Benoit, L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu, 1961, 46; P. Bonnard, L’Evangile selon Saint
Matthieu, 1963, 30; B. Gartner, Die rdtselhaften Termini Nazorder und Iskariot, 1957; E. Lohmeyer,
Galilda und Jerusalem, FRLANT 52, 1936; E. Schweizer, ‘‘Er wird Nazorder heissen”, Neotesta-
mentica: Deutsche und englische Aufsatze 1951-63, 1963, 51-55; R. Stiehl, ‘‘Aramaisch als
Weltsprache”’ in Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Alten Welt, 1 1964, 74.
On Christ:
(a). J. A. Allan, ‘“‘The ‘In Christ’ Formula in Ephesians’, N7S 5, 1958-59, 54-62; A. W. Argyle,
The Christ of the New Testament, 1952; D. E. Aune, ‘“‘A Note on Jesus’ Messianic Consciousness
and 11Q Melchizedek’’, EQ 45, 1973, 161-65; D. M. Baillie, God was in Christ: An Essay on
Incarnation and Atonement, 19617; H. Berkhof, Christ the Meaning of History, 1966; G. C. Ber-
kouwer, The Person of Christ, 1954; M. Black, ‘““The Christological Use of the Old Testament in
the New Testament”, NTS 18, 1971-72, 1-14; and A Survey of Christological Thought, 1872-
1972, The Croall Centenary Lecture, 1972; H. Boers, ‘“‘Jesus and the Christian Faith: New Testa-
ment Christology since Bousset’s Kyrios Christos’, JBL 89, 1971, 451-56; D. Bonhoeffer, Christo-
logy, 1966; W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of
Christianity to Irenaeus, 1970; W. H. Brownlee, ‘‘Messianic Motifs of Qumran and the New
Testament”, NTS 3, 1955-56, 12-30; and The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible, 1964;
E. Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, 1934; R. Bult-
mann, Theology of the New Testament, \, 1952, II, 1955; “‘Christ the End of the Law” and “The
Christological Confession of the World Council of Churches’’, in Essays, 1955, 36-66 and 273-90;
“On the Question of Christology’’, ‘““The Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of
Paul’’, and ‘“‘The Christology of the New Testament’’, in Faith and Understanding, 1969, 116-44,
220-46 and 262-85; R. E. Brown, Jesus God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections, 1968; R. P.
Casey, ‘““The Earliest Christologies’’, JTS New Series 9, 1958, 253-77; S. Cave, The Doctrine of the
Person of Christ, 1925; L. Cerfaux, Christ in the Theology of St. Paul, 1959; Concilium I, 2, 1966
(whole issue devoted to Catholic reappraisal of aspects of christology); R. G. Crawford, “‘Is Christ
inferior to God?’’, EQ 1971, 43, 203-9; J. M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ: A Study in the
History of Christian Doctrine since Kant, 1938; O. Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive
Christian Conception of Time and History, 1951; The Christology of the New Testament, .1963?;
and Salvation in History, 1967; D. Cupitt, Christ and the Hiddenness of God, 1971; N. A. Dahl,
‘“‘Christ, Creation and the Church’’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., op. cit., 422-43; E.
Dinkler, ‘“‘Peter’s Confession and the ‘Satan’ Saying: The Problem of Jesus’ Messiahship’’, in
J. M. Robinson, ed., The Future of Our Religious Past: Essays in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann, 1971,
169-202; R. Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus’ Recently
346
JESUS CHRIST
Discovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources, 1931; F. V. Filson,
Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, 1956; P. T. Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ, 1909; R. T.
Fortna, ‘‘Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Redaction Critical Perspectives”, NTS 21, 1974-75,
489-504; H. W. Frei, The Identity of Jesus Christ: The Hermeneutical Bases of Dogmatic Theology,
1975; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, 1965; L. Gaston, ‘‘The
Messiah of Israel as Teacher of the Gentiles’, Jnterpretation 29, 1975, 24-40; T. F. Glasson, ‘‘The
Uniqueness of Christ: The New Testament Witness”, EQ 43, 1971, 25-35; F. Gogarten, Christ
the Crisis, 1970; A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 19757; W. Grundmann, F. Hesse,
M. de Jonge, A. S. van der Woude, chrid etc., TDNT IX 493-581; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus
in Christology, 1969; A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, 1965; ‘‘The Reproach and
Vindication of the Messiah” and ‘“‘Christ the First Fruits, Christ the Tree’’, in Studies in Paul’s
Technique and Theology, 1974, 13-51 and 104-25; and Grace and Truth: A Study in the Doctrine
of the Incarnation, 1975; K. Heim, Jesus the Lord: The Sovereign Authority of Jesus and Gods’
Revelation in Christ, 1959; G. S. Hendry, The Gospel of the Incarnation, 1959; M. Hengel, The
Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, 1976; J. Hick,
“The Christology of D. M. Baillie’, S/T 11, 1958, 1-12; A. J. B. Higgins, ‘‘The Priestly Messiah’’,
NTS 13, 1966-67, 211-39; and Jesus and the Son of Man, 1965; J. W. Jack, The Historic Christ,
1933; E. G. Jay, Son of Man, Son of God, 1965; S. Katz, ‘‘Christology — A Jewish View’, S/T
24, 1971, 184-200; L. E. Keck, ‘“‘Mark 3 7-12 and Mark’s Christology”, JBL 84, 1965, 341 ff.;
J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew; Structure, Christology, and Kingdom, 1975; J. Klausner, From Jesus
to Paul, 1944; and The Messianic Idea in Israel, 1956; J. Knox, The Humanity and Divinity of
Christ: A Study of Pattern in Christology, 1967; W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 1966; W.
G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, 19617; E. D. La Touche,
The Person of Christ in Modern Thought, 1912; B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, Christ and Spirit in
the New Testament. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, 1973; R. N. Longenecker, The
Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 1970; H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of
Christ, 1912; J. McIntyre, The Shape of Christology, 1966; T. W. Manson, The Servant-Messiah,
1953; W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah. The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ:
With Special Reference to Form-Criticism, 1943; 1. H. Marshall, ‘‘The Development of Christology
in the Early Church”, 7B 18, 1967, 77-93; and The Origins of New Testament Christology, 1976;
B. A. Mastin, ‘“‘A Neglected Feature of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel’, N7S 22, 1975-
76, 32-51; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956; J. Obersteiner, ‘‘Messianism”, EBT II 575-82;
R. L. Ottley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation, 1929"; W. Pannenberg, Jesus - God and Man, 1968;
T. H. L. Parker, ed., Essays in Christology for Karl Barth, 1956; N. Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in
New Testament Christology, 1974; N. Pittenger, Christology Reconsidered, 1970; N. Pittenger,
ed., Christ for Us Today, 1967; T. E. Pollard, Johannine Christology and the Early Church,
1970; A. E. J. Rawlinson, The New Testament Doctrine of Christ, 1926; A. E. J. Rawlinson, ed.,
Essays on the the Trinity and Incarnation, 1928; H. M. Relton, A Study in Christology, 1917; H.
Riesenfeld, ““The Mythological Background of New Testament Christology’’, in W. D. Davies and
D. Daube, eds., op. cit., 81-95; J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and his Coming: the Emergence of a
Doctrine, 1957; ““The Most Primitive Christology of All?”’, Twelve New Testament Studies, 1962,
139-53; and The Human Face of God, 1973; L. Sabourin, The Names and Titles of Jesus: Themes of
Biblical Theology, 1967; R. Schnackenburg, ‘““The Gnostic Myth of the Redeemer and the Johannine
Christology’, in The Gospel according to St. John, 1, 1968, 543-57; H. J. Schoeps, The Jewish-
Christian Argument: A History of Theologies in Conflict, 1965; G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea
in Judaism, 1971; E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 1960; E. M. Sidebottom, The Christ
of the Fourth Gospel in the Light of First-Century Thought, 1961; C. Simonson, The Christology
of the Faith and Order Movement, 1972; L. B. Smedes, The Incarnation: Trends in Modern Anglican
Thought, 1953; D. Sodlle, Christ the Representative: An Essay in Theology after the ‘ Death of God’,
1967; S. W. Sykes and J. P. Clayton, eds., Christ, Faith and History, 1972; V. Taylor, The Person
of Christ in the New Testament Teaching, 1958; H. E. Todt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradi-
tion, 1965; W. C. van Unnik, “‘Jesus the Christ”, N7S 8, 1961-62, 101-16; A. R. Vine, An Ap-
proach to Christology, 1948; W. Vischer, The Witness of The Old Testament to Christ, 1949; B. B.
Warfield, The Lord of Glory, 1907; and The Person and Work of Christ, 1950.
(b) H.R. Balz, Methodische Probleme der neutestamentlichen Christologie, WMANT 25, 1967;
H.-W. Bartsch, “Wie redete die friihe Christenheit von Jesus Christus?’’, KidZ 19, 1964, 58 ff.;
J. Becker, ‘““Wunder und Christologie”’, N7S 16, 1969-70, 130-48; K. Berger, “‘Zum traditions-
347
JESUS CHRIST/JOIN
geschichtlichen Hintergrund christologischer Hoheitstitel’’, N7S 17, 1970-71, 391-425; ‘Die
k6niglichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments’, N7S 20, 1973-74, 1-44; and “Zum
Problem der Messianitat Jesu’’, ZTK 71, 1974, 1 ff.; O. Betz, “‘Die Frage nach dem messianischen
Bewusstsein Jesu’, NovT 6, 1963, 20 ff. ; J. Blank, Krisis. Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christo-
logie und Eschatologie, 1964; O. Bocher, Christus Exorcista: Dadmonismus und Taufe im Neuen
Testament, 1972; T. Boman, Die Jesus-Uberlieferung im Lichte der neuren Volkskunde, 1967; C.
Burger, Jesus als Davidsohn, FRLANT 98, 1970; H. Dembowski, “‘Jesus Christus — Herr der
Gotter,” EvTh 29, 1969, 572 ff.; O. Eissfeldt, “‘“Christus”, RAC II 1250 ff.; E. Fascher, ‘“‘Christo-
logie oder Theologie? Bemerkungen zu O. Cullmanns Christologie des Neuen Testaments’, TLZ
87, 1962, 882-910; G. Friedrich, “‘Jesus Christus’, BHHW II 859 ff.; J. Gnilka, ‘“‘War Jesus
Revolutionar?”’, Bul 12,1971, 67 ff.; A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, eds., Das Konzil von Chalkedon,
I-I1J, 1951; E. Giittgemanns, ‘“‘Christos in 1. Kor. 15, 3b — Titel oder Eigenname?’’, EvTh 28, 1968,
533 ff.; U. Hedinger, ‘“‘Christus und die Gotter Griechenlands’, EvTh 30, 1970, 97 ff.; E.
Haenchen, ‘Die frtthe Christologie’, Z7K 63, 1966, 145 ff.; 1. Herrmann, Kyrios und Pneuma,
1961; B. van Iersel, ‘“‘Der Sohn” in den synoptischen Jesusworten, Supplements to NovT 3, 1964?;
J. Jeremias, “Artikelloses Christos. Zur Ursprache von 1. Kor. 15, 3b—5”, ZNW 57, 1966, 211 ff.;
H. Karpp, “‘Christennamen’’, RAC II 1114 ff., U. Kellermann, Messias und Gesetz, BSt 61, 1972;
H. Kessler, Die theologische Bedeutung des Todes Jesus, 19717; E. Krankl, Jesus der Knecht Gottes,
1972: W. G. Kimmel et al., Jesus Christus: Das Christusverstandnis im Wandel der Zeiten, Eine
Ringvorlesung der Theologischen Fakultat der Universitat Marburg, Marburger theologische
Studien |, 1963; E. Larsson, Christus als Vorbild, 1962; F. M. T. de Liagre Bohl et al., ‘‘Messias’’,
RGG? IV 900 ff.; G Lindeskog, “‘Christuskerygma und Jesustradition’’, NovT 5, 1962, 144-56;
E. Lohmeyer, Gottesknecht und Davidssohn, FRLANT 61, 19537; R. Maddox, ‘“‘Methodenfragen
in der Menschensohnforschung”’, EvTh 32, 1972, 143 ff.; H. J. Margull, “Tod Jesu und Schmerz
Gottes’’, in Leben angesichts des Todes. H. Thielicke zum 60. Geburtstag, 1968; W. Marxsen,
Anfangsprobleme der Christologie, 1960; C. Maurer, “‘Das Messiasgeheimnis des Markusevan-
geliums’’, NTS 14, 1967-68; 515-26; U. B. Miller, Messias und Menschensohn in jtidischen
Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung Johannes, Studien zum Neuen Testament 6, 1972; F. Neuge-
bauer, ‘‘Das Paulinische ‘in Christo’ ’”’, NTS 4, 1957-58, 124-38; and, Jesus der Menschensohn,
AzTh 50, 1972; R. Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage, Quaestiones Dispu-
tatae 52, 1970; E. Peterson, “‘Christianus”, in Friihkirche, Judentum und Gnosis, 1959, 64 ff.; P.
Pokorny, “Jesus, Glaube, Christologie’, ThZ 18, 1962, 268-82; K. H. Rengstorf, Die Auferste-
hung Jesu, 1967°, 129 ff.; K. H. Rengstorf and S. von Kortzfleisch, Kirche und Synagoge, I, 1968,
23 ff.; M. Rese, Alttestamentliche Motive in der Christologie des Lukas, (Dissertation, Bonn) 1965;
H. Ristow and K. Matthiae, eds., Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, 1960;
L. Ruppert, Jesus als der leidende Gerechte ?, 1972; K. L. Schmidt, Jesus Christus im Zeugnis der
Heiligen Schrift und der Kirche, 1936; W. Schmithals, Jesus in der Verktindigung der Kirche,
1972; N. Scholl, Jesus — nur ein Mensch? 1971; D. F. Strauss, Der Christus des Glaubens und
Jesus der Geschichte, (1865) Texte zur Kirchen— und Theologiegeschichte 14, 1971; G. Strecker,
‘“‘Die historische und theologische Problematik der Jesusfrage”’, EvTh 29, 1969, 453 ff.; K. Schu-
bart, Der historische Jesus und der Christus unseres Glaubens, 1962; G. Sevenster, W. Pannenberg
and P. Althaus, ‘““Christologie’, RGG I 1745-89; W. Thusing, Die Erhéhung und Verherrlichkeit
Jesu im Johannes-Evangelium, 1960; and Per Christum in Deum, NTAbh 1, 19687; P. Vielhauer,
‘“‘Zur Frage der christologischen Hoheitstitel’”’, TLZ 8, 1965, 569 ff.; and ‘“‘Ein Weg zur neutesta-
mentlichen Christologie?’, EvTh 25, 1965, 24 ff. (reprinted in Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament,
1965, 141 ff.); and ‘““Erwagungen zur Christologie des Markusevangeliums” (in Aufsatze Zum
Neuen Testament, 199 ff.); A. Vogtle, Messias und Gottesohn, Theologische Perspektiven, 1971;
P. G. Wacker, “‘Christus ohne Kirche?’ ThG 64, 1974, 1 ff.
Join, Cleave to
KoAAdopal (kollaomai), join, cleave to, stick to;
KoAAGopal mtpooKodddopa (proskollaomai), cleave to, stick to.
CL kollaomai, found from Pindar onwards, is a cognate of kolla, glue (Hdt.
onwards) and means to glue in contrast to nailing, to join together tightly.
348
JOIN
Literal examples are gluing a broken pot, to glue inlay work of gold and ivory, to
steep barley in water, to close a wound (Galen). It is also used of the penetration of
poison into a body (Hippocrates). Metaphorically it occurs in the phrase kekollétai
genos pros ata, the uniting of humanity in a delusion (Aesch., Agamemnon 1566).
The compound prosko/laomai means to stick to.
oT 1. The LXX uses both words predominantly to render Heb. dabag, cling, cleave
to, and once each for naga‘ (hiph.), ndgas, ndsar, and rdbas. The basic mean-
ing can be found in Pss. 22:15 (MT 22:16); 137:6; Job 29:10; Lam. 4:4, where
the tongue cleaves to the gums for thirst. Similarly it can be said that — leprosy,
pestilence or diseases cleave to a person (2 Ki. 5:27; Deut. 28:21, 60).
2. It frequently means to join someone, to cleave to him (e.g. Ruth. 2:8, 21; 2
Sam. 20:2; Pss. 101:3[MT 101:4]; 119:31; Job 41:15; 41:9; 1 Macc. 3:2; 6:21).
3. It also is used of the permanent relationship of man and woman (Gen. 2: 24).
As is shown by | Esd. 4:20 (‘A man leaves his own father, who brought him up,
and his own country, and cleaves to his wife’), it refers to more than the sexual
union of man and wife and extends to the whole relationship. Because Solomon
“clung” to foreign wives (1 Ki. 11:2) he came under their religious influence. ““The
man who consorts [ko/llémenos] with harlots’’ (Sir. 19:2) comes under an influence
inconsistent with wisdom.
4. The contrast is union with God. “‘You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall
serve him and cleaveto him” (Deut. 10:20; cf. 6:13; 2 Ki. 18:6; Sir. 2:3; Jer. 13:11).
The stress here is on inner union with God in contrast to the cultic and legal one of
the context.
NT kollaomai is found in the NT only in the pass. or mid., and follows the usage of
the LXX.
1. The basic meaning is found in Lk. 10:11, “The dust . . . that clings [kolléthenta|
to our feet’’; cf. also Rev. 18:5 lit. “her sins cleaved to her [eko//léthésan| high up to
heaven’”’ (cf. Jer. 51:9 [LXX 28:9]; contrast TDNT III 822).
2. The commonest usage is to join someone, to be near: the prodigal son joined
himself to foreign citizens (Lk. 15:15); Philip joined the chariot of the Ethiopian
(Acts 8:29); Paul tried to join the church (Acts 9:26); some who had joined Paul
came to faith (Acts 17:34); though the people of Jerusalem held the Christians in
high honour, no non-Christian ventured to join them (Acts 5:13); 1t was repre-
hensible for a Jew to ‘‘associate with” (kollasthai) anyone of another nation
(allophylos), \.e. heathens (Acts 10:28), because they did not have the — law.
3. Matt. 19:5 and Eph. 5:31 both quote Gen. 2:24 (— Marriage; — Divorce).
(a) Matt. 19:5: marriage is indissoluble, because in it two persons become one
living being. This refers to the relationship of the partners and not merely the sexual
union (contrast TDNT III 822).
(b) Eph. 5:31: Christ left his Father to be completely with his bride, the ekklesia
(—> Church) and to begin a new life with her (sarka mian, one — flesh). Just as in
Ezek. 16, the husband here comes as sotér, saviour (Eph. 5:23). His wife — the new
— people of God —is decked with imperishable riches (Eph. 5:26f.; cf. Ezek.
16:10-13). The marriage relationship is a ‘great mystery” which reflects the rela-
tionship of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:32).
349
JOIN/JONAH
4. The believer’s union with God necessitates that he must detest the evil and
‘hold fast to what is good” (Rom. 12:9). Since with his body he is a member of the
—> body of Christ, he cannot become one body, a human unity, with a harlot. For
‘“‘he who is united with the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (1 Cor. 6:17). He
should also live in this Spirit, and perfectly imitate the actions and revelation of
his Lord. But if he unites himself with a harlot, he will become like her (1 Cor. 6:16).
The one who has sexual relations with a harlot is not committing a purely physical
act which does not touch the spirit. The whole man reveals himself in all that he
does. He who unites himself to a harlot has a common existence with her. There is
no purely sexual sin. The spirit of the brothel and the Spirit of Christ mutually
exclude one another. H. Seebass
—»> Disciple, — Discipline, —- Divorce, — Marriage
E. Best, One Body in Christ, 1955; A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, 1965,
18 ff. and passim; J. A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology, SBT 5, 1952; J. P.
Sampley, ‘And the Two Shall Become One Flesh’: A Study of Traditions in Ephesians 5:21-33,
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 16, 1971; K. L. Schmidt, kollad, proskollad,
TDNT III 822 f.
Jonah
| lovag "Iwvdc (lénas), Heb. yénah, Jonah.
The NT references to Jonah are exhausted by those passages in which Jesus alludes
to him in the course of certain controversial exchanges with the Pharisees (Matt.
12:38-41; 16:4; Lk. 11:29-32). These references are both general to the career of
Jonah, and particular, in that they refer to him as a — sign.
Au =
oT The Gk. sémeion is occasionally used in LXX as equivalent to mdpét (Exod.
11:9, 10), i.e. that which by its remarkable nature excites wonder and attracts
attention; occasionally also it translates nés, a banner, i.e. that which catches the
eye. But for the most part it translates ’6f, a sign. It is thus involved in two distinct
meanings. On the one hand, a sign (e.g. Deut. 13:1) is something performed in
order to persuade people to an immediate response; on the other hand, a sign can
be offered (e.g. Exod. 3:12) as a future confirmation of the truth of some present
fact. This background is clearly present in the sign element in Jesus’ references to
Jonah.
Four matters call for brief enquiry in the story of Jonah. First, what was the
motive for his flight (Jon. 1:3 ff.)? The majority view is that he was a religious
particularist and fled from the possibility of seeing Israel’s privileges being shared
with the heathen. It ought to be noted, however, that Jewish opinion, as reflected
in the Babylonian Talmud which appoints the Book of Jonah to be read in its
entirety on the Day of Atonement, thus stressed the repentance of the Ninevites
as an example which the people of God were called to follow (Meg. 31a; cf. M.
D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew, 1974, 187, 334). This was the very
point which Jesus sought to make. Rather than thus expose his people, Jonah
risked his own life, willing to die on their behalf. It is not unworthy of note that,
350
JONAH
in quoting Exod. 34:6, 7 (Jon. 4:2), he omitted the reference to divine strictness
of judgment.
Secondly, the book of Jonah records his own comment on his remarkable ex-
perience. In his prayer, the fish’s belly becomes ‘‘the belly of Sheol” (Jon. 2:2; >
Hell). While recognizing that Sheol is frequently metaphorical for that which is
dark, threatening and likely to end in death, the use of the metaphor here, coupled
with the reference to the “pit” (v. 6) must form part of the OT background to
Jesus’ use of the incident. .
Thirdly, we must ask in what terms Jonah preached to Nineveh. All that is
recorded (Jon. 3:4) is a proclamation of coming judgment. It was the force of this
word, and the recognition of the divine authorization which lay behind it which
implemented the response of repentance. As far as is noted, Jonah made no refer-
ence to his experience in the fish.
Fourthly, the call to repentance was heeded and God expressed his total satis-
faction with this (Jon. 3:10 ff.) It was what he wanted and therefore effectively
produced remission.
NT In speaking of the people of his day as “evil and adulterous” (Matt. 12:39;
Lk. 11:29 agrees with ponéra [evil] but does not add moichalis [adulterous]),
Jesus undoubtedly intended to set up a parallelism between them and Nineveh
(Jon. 1:2): “wicked” in heart and life and “adulterous” physically and spiritually.
Their spiritual vacuity is sharply underlined by the Lord in his refusal of the sign
which they sought. Matt. 16:1 notes that they wished a “‘sign from heaven’’, pre-
sumably something unequivocally from God, something which would authenticate
Jesus mainly because he himself had no involvement in its performance — a sign
of the sort offered in Isa. 7:10. To Jesus (cf. Matt. 11:4) this was rank blindness in
the face of his constant performance of his own works before their eyes. In this
context he set up a threefold comparison. First, he made an open comparison
between himself and Jonah (Matt. 16:4; Lk. 11:30). Especially in the former of
these references he left his hearers to their own interpretative devices. In the latter,
there is a significant change of tense: ‘‘as Jonah became [egeneto]...the Son of
man shall be [estai]....”’ That is to say, reviewing the story of Jonah, they can well
see that he was a divinely sent persuader (a sign of the first category above), a
watershed, a heaven-sent opportunity which came once and did not return. Even
so, there will be that about the Son of man (a sign of the second category) which
will, at some later point, make them aware that he too was sent from God and
that in him too they reached, for good or ill, a point of no return.
Secondly, Jesus compared Jonah’s experience of a three-day sojourn in the fish
to his own coming sojourn “‘in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40). This is largely
rejected by commentators (DB, McNeile, Plummer) as a typical Matthaean embel-
lishment, pursuant to his supposed penchant for snatching Bible-fulfilments out of
the air. McNeile’s criticism that Jesus was not in fact three days in the tomb is more
indicative of a weak case than of critical acumen. In the light of our own discussion
immediately above, the question is rather to what Jesus was looking forward when
he predicted a coming event in the light of which his own status as a Jonah-type
sign would be clear. His resurrection from an unequivocal experience of death
would be the very “‘sign from heaven’’ which once they had faithlessly sought and
351
JONAH/JOoyY
would not, even when it happened, be able to recognize — as Jesus full well foresaw
(cf. Lk. 16:31). Matthew’s record of the comparison between Jonah in a Sheol-
like situation and Jesus actually “in the heart of the earth” is distinctly apt.
The third element in the sign-comparison which Jesus made is between Jonah’s
preaching and its result and his own preaching and its result (Matt. 12:41; Lk.
11:32). The comparison here is a fortiori. The ensuing judgment on impenitence
will be greater because the one who calls to repentance is greater. In the light of the
OT testimony to the status of the prophet, Jesus can here be seen as claiming the
honour due to his deity, exactly as in Matt. 23:34. J. A. Motyer
—»> Fish, — Miracle, — Nineveh, —> Number
(a). G. Ch. Aalders, The Problem of the Book of Jonah, 1948; L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel,
Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 1976; R. A.
Edwards, The Sign of Jonah in the Theology of the Evangelists and Q, SBT Second Series 18, 1971;
and A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy and Wisdom, 1975; M. D. Goulder, Midrash and
Lection in Matthew, 1974; D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972: J. Howton, “‘The Sign of Jonah’’,
SJT 15, 1962, 288-304; J. Jeremias, Jonas, TDNT 406-10; A. Helmbold, “‘Jonah, Book of”, ZPEB
III 675-79; A. R. Johnson, “‘Jonah II 3-10: A Study in Cultic Phantasy’, in H. H. Rowley, ed.,
Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson, 1950, 82-102;
O. Linton, ‘““The Demand for a Sign from Heaven (Mark. 8.11-12 and par.)’’, StTh 19, 1965,
112-29; A. H. McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, 1915; C. Moxon, to sémeion Iona,
ExpT 22, 190-11, 566 ff.; W. Neil, ‘““Jonah, Book of’’, /DB IJ 964-67; A. Plummer, An Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1909; R. B. Y. Scott, ‘“‘The Sign of Jonah:
An Interpretation”, Interpretation 24, 1970, 16-25; R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according to St.
Matthew, 1961.
(b). O. Glombitza, ‘“‘Das Zeichen des Jona (Zum Verstandnis von Matthaus 12. 38-42)’, NTS 8,
1961-62, 359-66.
Joy, Rejoice
There are three main groups of words in the NT which denote human joy and
happiness and express its special character. In the case of chaird physical comfort
and well-being are the basis of joy. Hence the use of the vb. in the good wishes
which people express on greeting one another and on parting. They refer to the
benefits of health and happiness which, in fact, people wish for themselves. On the
other hand, euphraind indicates the subjective feeling of joy, and agalliaomai the
outward demonstration of joy and pride and the exultation experienced in public
worship.
ayaddidopal (agalliaomai), exult, rejoice greatly, be
ayaAAaopal overjoyed; ayaddiaaic (agalliasis), exultation, great joy.
CL agalliaomai, exult, shout for joy, rejoice greatly, and the corresponding noun
agalliasis, exultation, are found only in the LXX, the NT and in Jewish and
Christian writers dependent on them. They are later formations from the profane
Greek agallé and agallomai (from Homer onwards) which occur with the following
meanings: (a) to adorn, honour, glorify, revere (in Plato and Aristotle); (b) to make
a show, boast of something (Herodotus); (c) to enjoy, experience pleasure in
something (Homer); (d) to be in raptures (Herodotus). This is the basic human
emotion of joy which takes possession of the whole man.
352
JOY
oT 1. In the LXX agalliaomai and agalliasis occur most frequently as the transla-
tion of gil (rejoice, rejoicing) and rdnan (cry in joy). They indicate the cultic
festive joy, which expresses itself publicly over God’s acts of salvation in the past
and present (e.g. Ps. 32:11), but is not orgiastic as in the Canaanitish cults. The
significance of these words soon extended beyond the sphere of public worship.
agalliaomai came to express both corporate and individual attitudes of thankful
joy before God (cf. Pss. 9:14; 16:9; 21:1; 31:7; 35:27; 92:4). This rejoicing not
only testifies to past experiences of God’s salvation; it also exults in his faithful
dealings which are still future (cf. Hab. 3:18) and which the believer sees ensured
by Yahweh. The keynote of public worship remains, but the rejoicing embraces
even the created universe, the silent witnesses to God’s mighty acts such as the
heavens, the earth, the mountains, the islands, which all join in the jubilation or are
called upon to do so (Pss. 19:5; 89:12; 96:11; and 97 passim). Even God himself
joins in (Isa. 65:19). Under the prophets both during and after the exile, Israel’s
rejoicing in his God, even in wretched situations, broadened out to include an-
ticipatory gratitude for final salvation and messianic joy (Isa. 61). It was in this
eschatological direction that the Heb. attitude of thanks and praise reached its
profoundest expression (cf. Pss. 96:11 ff.; 97:8; 126:2, 5; Isa. 25:9).
2. Loud, exultant rejoicing over God’s acts of salvation in the past, present and
the eschatological future continued to be characteristic of Rab. theology and the
piety of Rab. Judaism (SB IV 2, 851 f.). The whole aim of the Jew’s life was to
glorify God. Jubilation thus accompanied “the dramatic history of the Jewish
people like the strains of some heavenly choir, and in the liturgy became the domi-
nant element in their religious life’ (E. Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom, 1957, 102).
3. In contrast with Rab. Judaism, the Qumran community held that the day of
salvation had already begun. In praise and prayer (especially in the Hodayot [1QH]
and in the concluding part of the Community Rule [1QS 10:11]) they rejoiced in
God who in his mercy had granted them salvation and given them insight into his
— secrets.
NT 1. In the NT agalliaomai occurs 11 times and agalliasis only 5 times (cf. chairein
which occurs 74 times). The words are used as in the LXX, but with this differ-
ence. In the OT exultant rejoicing arises from gratitude and unshakeable trust in the
God who has constantly helped and still is helping his people Israel. He will do
away with all want and distress in his final act of deliverance at the coming of
messiah. In the NT the rejoicing turns to the God who now in Jesus Christ has
already inaugurated the eschatological age of salvation and will gloriously complete
it on Christ’s return.
(a) In the Gospels there is jubilation even before the coming of Jesus. Zechariah
sang for joy when the forerunner of the Lord was born (Lk. 1:14), and even the
child in Elizabeth’s womb shared in the rejoicing (Lk. 1:44). Jesus spoke of devout
Israelites who for a short time rejoiced in the light of John the Baptist (Jn. 5:35).
In her song of praise Mary rejoiced that she had been granted a place in God’s
saving purpose (Lk. 1:47), while Jesus himself as the bringer of salvation not only
called upon men to rejoice but joined in himself. The Beatitudes conclude with
the exhortation: ‘‘Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven” (Matt.
5:12; cf. Lk. 6:23). Jesus rejoiced in spirit because the time of salvation was at hand.
353
JOY
It was revealed to babes but at the same time, since it also involves judgment, it
was hidden from the wise (Lk. 10:21; cf. Matt. 11:25). Even ~ Abraham (one of
“the just men made perfect’’, Heb. 12:23) rejoiced that he had a part in the day of
salvation (Jn. 8:56). The early — church regarded itself as the — elect of the last
days because of God’s saving work in Jesus Christ. It made Christ’s cross, resurrec-
tion and future return the basis of its rejoicing, and thus interpreted David’s joy
christologically (Acts 2:26, where Peter quotes Ps. 16:10). The Philippian jailer
rejoiced (égalliasato) with his whole family because he had come to faith and had
been incorporated into the saved community of the last days through — faith and
—> baptism (Acts 16:34). At the cultic meal of the breaking of bread the early
church sang with joy as they anticipated the parousia of the risen Christ. They
observed the — Lord’s Supper “in exultation [en agalliasei]” (Acts 2:47; cf. J.
Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 19667, 254).
(b) Paul does not use the word, but is no stranger to the idea. He expresses it
partly through the vb. kauchasthai, to — boast.
(c) In the rest of the NT (with the exception of Mk. and Jas.) the word appears
sporadically. In Heb. 1:9 God himself is represented as addressing Christ. He —
anoints his son with the — oil of gladness [agalliasis], i.e. with consecrated oil as
used at joyous feasts (cf. Ps. 45:7). In Jude 24 the church bows in praise before
him ‘“‘who is able to keep you from falling and present you without blemish before
the presence of his glory with rejoicing [en agalliasei|’” (cf. Acts 2:46). In 1 Pet.
the church is called upon to look away from its sufferings in the last days, for they
are insignificant in comparison with the rejoicing which will break forth at the end
of time (1 Pet. 1:6, 8; 4:13). In Rev. believers are summoned by a voice at the end
of time crying, ““Let us rejoice and exult [chairdmen kai agallidmen] and give him
the glory (Rev. 19:7). In Matt. 5:12; Lk. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:8; and 4:13 chairo and
agalliaomai are also used together.
2. agalliasis, the festive joy which takes in the past and points to the future, thus
becomes the characteristic attitude of the NT church and of the individual Chris-
tians in it. Its public worship is full of joy, as at the eschatological banquet (cf.
Rev. 19:7-9). Joy is experienced through the salvation achieved by Jesus Christ in
the past, personally experienced in the present, and confidently expected in the
future. Looked at in this way, the — sufferings of this present time are alleviated.
For even while they weigh heavily upon us we have paradoxically good reason to
rejoice. Such rejoicing is grounded entirely in the person of Christ. The Lord
himself, risen, present and returning, is the basis for all our joy.
E. Beyreuther
| ebdpaivo eddpaiva (euphraino), gladden, cheer (up); evépoovvy
ig | (euphrosyné), joy, gladness, cheerfulness.
CL The vb. euphraino is found in colloquial Greek from Homer onwards, and
means in the active to cheer, to gladden a person; in the middle and passive
to make merry. The noun euphrosyné (from Homer onwards) means merriment,
joy, good cheer. Such joy stems largely from those events and situations which give
354
JOY
rise to communal rejoicing, such as a banquet. Nevertheless, philosophers also
use the word for introspective and spiritual joy.
oT In the LXX the word is used far more frequently than — chairo and is not
sharply distinguished from — agalliad. It chiefly renders words from the stem
samah (rejoice, gladden); and in Isa. more frequently words from rdnan (cry in
joy) and sis (rejoice). Its use is concentrated in certain books of the OT such as
Deut., the Deuteronomistic historical works, and particularly the Pss., Lam., Eccl.,
and Isa. (especially passages attributed to Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah). In addition
it is used with remarkable frequency in Sir. The distribution is similar in the case
of the noun. The word is clearly the appropriate expression for the united joy
expressed at the cultic celebrations or sacrificial feasts. But the OT concept of God
(— God oT) prevents the type of ecstatic orgy, so common in heathenism, where the
distinction between human and divine became blurred.
Joy can also be that of the heart of an individual, especially in response to God’s
help in situations of need (e.g. Ps. 13:5). Finally, euphraind is used alongside
agalliao to express the eschatological joy in which even the heavens and the earth
participate (Pss. 96:11; 97:1), God also rejoicing with them (Isa. 65:19). Joy is a
feature of God’s eternal world. At this point it may be observed that festive joy
at the great communal feasts — the human enjoyment of eating, drinking and bodily
refreshment — becomes a vivid picture of eschatological joy.
For the rest a wide diversity of usage can be found, a fact indicated by numerous
Hebrew equivalents: joy as an emotion (e.g. Ps. 16:11); joy in someone or some-
thing (2 Sam. 1:26; Eccl. 11:9); joy in God (Neh. 8:10; Ps. 33:21); joy in God’s
word (Jer. 15:16; Ps. 119:14); joy in the keeping of the commandments (Ps. 119:
162); joy in the time of salvation (Isa. 35:10; 52:12).
In the piety of Rab. Judaism joy is still of great importance. Joy in God’s law
now occupies a large place (cf. Pss. 19, 119). The festivals, especially Passover and
the Feast of Tabernacles, are joyous occasions (— Feast).
Joy characterizes the expected time of salvation. In Qumran, salvation is seen as
already present, and there is rejoicing over God’s redemptive gifts (cf. 1QM 12:13;
13:12 ff.; 17:7 f.; 1QH 11:23, 30; 18:15; CD 20:33).
Philo’s piety is especially marked by euphrosyné. Taking festive joy as his starting
point, he finds joy merely in seeking God (e.g. Spec.Leg. 36). God himself radiates
joy by means of the Logos, especially upon all who by their virtues prove themselves
worthy. Everything that belongs to God has this same characteristic: wisdom
(sophia) is full of delight (chara), joy (euphrosyné) and other good things (Rer.
Div. Her. 315; cf. R. Bultmann, 7 DNT II 773 f.).
NT In the NT the word chairo is clearly preferred as the term for joy (by contrast
with its relative infrequency in the LXX). euphraino occurs 14 times, of which
no less than 8 are in the Lucan writings (cf. Luke’s liking for OT phrases), 3 in
Paul and 3 in Rev. euphrosyné is found twice only, in Acts. Five out of the total are
OT quotations.
1. The words are clearly connected with the rejoicing to be found at a festive
banquet, and this indicates the OT origins of their usage. euphrainod thus denotes
in the NT the joy of the festive company, not the subjective emotion of an individual.
In Lk. 12:19; 16:19 it refers to eating, drinking and enjoying oneself — in the latter
355
JOY
instance doubtless in revelry among convivial friends. This is what man without
God sees as supremely worthwhile and what material possessions are for. On the
other hand, emphasis on the joy wrought by God is a peculiar feature of the Lucan
writings (— chaird NT 3). Luke’s Gospel is irradiated by joy. Thus in Lk. 15:23, 32
there is an invitation to make merry over the return of the lost son, while according
to Lk. 15:29 the elder son enviously desires a similar joyous feast for himself.
Acts 14:17 speaks of joy in the gifts of nature as being God’s gifts in creation.
Acts 2:26, 28, applying Ps. 16:8—11 to the resurrection, speaks of joy in the pre-
sence of God. On the other hand, Acts 7:41 refers to the shameless rejoicing of
Israel when worshipping before the golden calf (cf. Exod. 32:4, 6).
2. Paul normally uses the vb. chaird (even in the context of 2 Cor. 2:2), but in
Rom. 15:10 and Gal. 4:27 he is influenced by OT quotations. In Rom. 15:10 he
sees the fulfilment of Deut. 32:43: the reason for rejoicing is that the message of
Christ has now come to the Gentiles. Similarly in Gal. 4:27 the call to rejoice is
applied to the — Jerusalem that is above, the church of the new — covenant
composed of Jews and Gentiles.
3. Likewise in Rev. 12:12 and 18:20 which are based on OT quotations (cf.
Isa. 44:23; 49:13; Jer. 51:48; Rev. 11:10 is not so based), it is eschatological
rejoicing which is expressed by euphraind. The fact that eschatological joy often
appears in the NT under the figure of a joyous feast, and that Jesus himself, when
on earth, does not scorn to join in the festivities of the common meal, indicates that
the word euphraino is in complete accord with the joyous message of the gospel.
E. Beyreuther
xvaipao | yaipw (chair), be glad, rejoice; yapa (chara), joy.
CL chairo, to be glad, rejoice (related to the Sanskrit haryati, to take pleasure in,
and the Old High German geron, to desire), and chara, joy, are attested
from Homer onwards. chairein epi (also dia, en, peri) means to rejoice over someone
or something. The reason for the joy is introduced with hoti (that) or appears
in a participial form. The pres. imperative frequently occurs in the greeting
chaire (sing.), chairete (plur.), ‘Hail!’ At the opening of a letter in the infin. chairein,
is often used in which case the vb. /egei has to be supplied (cf. Funk § 480): “‘[...
says] greetings!’ The same formula is used in drinking a toast, ‘““Good health!’’, and
at parting, ““Farewell!’’ The phrases chairein charan megalén (be filled with intense
joy) and chara chairein (rejoice greatly), which occur in the NT, doubtless go back
to OT influence (Matt. 2:10; cf. Jon. 4:6; Jn. 3:29; cf. Isa. 66:10). chara denotes
both the state and the object of the joy.
Also to be noted is the etymological connection with charis (grace) which has
not always been clearly distinguished in meaning from chara.
ot In the LXX chara appears only in the later writings (principally Wis. and 1-4
Macc.) and is chiefly a translation of the Hebrew words simhah, joy, gladness,
and sdason, joy. It is distinguished from charis, which most frequently translates
hén, grace, favour. For the most part words from the stem samah, to be glad, also
gil, rejoice and sis, to be glad, are rendered by chairo.
There is no clear distinction between the usage of chaird and that of euphraind,
356
JOY
the Heb. equivalent of which is also predominantly samah. The two words are often
synonymous (Lam. 4:21; Prov. 29:6; Est. 8:17; 9:27 and passim), though Sir.
30:16 does permit a certain differentiation. Basically, euphraind is nearer to >
agalliaomai, as it also translated in words such as Sir, to sing. chairo covers both
the subjective feeling and the objective cause of joy. Of all the words in this group
it thus comes closest to the Heb. Sal6m, — peace, salvation, and in fact is used to
translate this in Isa. 48:22; 57:21 (cf. Tob. 13:14[15] charésontai epi té eiréné sou
“shall rejoice over thy peace’’). The vb. and the noun do not often appear in the
context of joy in worship (Ps. 30:11); agalliaomai and euphraino are used almost
exclusively in such passages.
1. A non-specific use as a greeting occurs particularly in 1-4 Macc. The general
meaning to be glad, to be pleased, is found in e.g. Gen. 45:16; Isa. 39:2; cf. 2 Ki.
20:13.
In the OT there is no apology for joy in the good things of life, such as health
(Sir. 30:16), wise children (Prov. 23:25), eating and drinking (1 Ki. 3:1; cf. Ps.
104:14 f.), peace in the land (1 Macc. 14:11; — euphraino). But the author of Prov.
also warns that joy is transitory and is threatened by the vicissitudes of life: after
laughter comes weeping (Prov. 14:13).
2. God is the giver of all joy and of all — blessings (1 Ki. 8:66). He gives his
gracious word (1 Ki. 8:56) which far outweighs all transitory blessings. This word
comforts and strengthens in times of temptation and distress (Jer. 15:16). It
enables men to endure until such time as God turns mourning into joy (Ps. 126:5).
The fear of the Lord is thus a source of joy (Sir. 1:12). Consequently chaird serves
also to describe eschatological joy, rejoicing over ultimate salvation and peace
(Joel 2:21, 23; Isa. 66:10, 14; Zech. 10:7; Tob. 13:25 in conjunction with >
agalliaomai).
3. In Rab. Judaism joy in the — law is emphasized. Reading the Pentateuch is
described as the joy of the law (cf. SB IV 154; TDNT II 773 f.), or ‘‘fullness of joy”’
(cf. SB IT 566 on Jn. 16:24). In Philo divine — wisdom is a source of joy (Rer. Div.
Her. 315). God alone has pure joy; it is other-worldly, but comes to man in mystic
union with him (Abr. 201-207; Spec.Leg. 2, 54 f.).
4. In Qumran joy (simhah) also springs from knowledge of the truth (1QH 11:30),
but here it is the knowledge of God’s — election and of his — mercy towards his
elect. There is a decisive contrast between present sadness in affliction and chastise-
ment (1QH 9:24) and the joy of final victory (1QM 13:12 f.; 14:4; 18:8 and often).
A banner in the final battle bears the inscription “Joy of God’ (1QM 4:14), and
after the victory the sons of light will be translated to glory and everlasting joy
(1QH 13:6).
NT In the NT the vb. and noun occur chiefly in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles
(the vb. 74 times; the noun 59 times). The writings with the most instances of
chaird and chara are found as follows: 20 times in Lk.; 11 in Acts; 18 in Jn.; 12
in Matt.; 14 in Phil.; 13 in 2 Cor.; 7 in Rom.; and 6 in 1 Thess. It is no accident
that the words appear particularly where there is express mention of the eschato-
logical fulfilment in Christ, of being in him, and of hope in him. But it ought not
to be overlooked that the whole NT message as the proclamation of God’s saving
work in Christ is a message of joy (— Gospel).
357
JOY
1. The general use as a greeting needs only brief mention. chairein is used at the
beginning of a letter in Acts 15:23; 23:26; Jas. 1:1 (+ Book). In 2 Jn. 10 those
addressed are warned to refuse hospitality to teachers of heretical doctrine, so as
to avoid all involvement in their evil deeds. In Matt. 28:9 the risen Christ makes
himself known to his disciples using the familiar, everyday chairete. When in Matt.
26:49; 27:29 par. Mk. 15:18, Jn. 19:3, Jesus is saluted in derision as rabbi or
King of the Jews (— Israel) there is a concealed irony since he is quite unwittingly
given the salutation which is his due. In Lk. 1:28, Mary is startled not so much
by the chaire itself, as by the message which follows it.
2. According to the Synoptic Gospels, the coming of Jesus brings in a time of
joy: “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them ?”’
(Matt. 9:15 par. Mk. 2:19, Lk. 5:34; — Fast). The fact that he brings in the escha-
tological salvation distinguishes him plainly from John the Baptist and the OT
prophets: the blind see and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear,
the dead are raised and the poor have the gospel preached to them (Matt. 11:5 par.
Lk. 7:22). The effect of his work and preaching is to bring joy (Lk. 19:6). Even
when he became an offence and the way of those who tread in his footsteps leads
to suffering and persecution, the joyful assurance of salvation should not be lost:
“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven!” (Matt. 5:12). Jesus is
the coming judge of the whole world. Hence he who remains faithful to Christ’s
commission and receives the word with no mere ephemeral joy (Matt. 13:20 par.
Mk. 4:16, Lk. 8:13), will hear one day the welcoming summons to the joyous
banquet of his Lord. On chara in the sense of banquet, festive dinner, and its
possible use in this sense in Matt. 25:21, 23 see Arndt, 884; SB I 879, 972. On the
parable of the great supper see J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 1963", 63-69 (cf.
Matt. 22:2 f.; Rev. 19:7, 9). When the disciples met the risen Christ, they were
seized not only with — fear but also with great joy (Matt. 28:8; cf. Mk. 16:8;
Lk. 24:9).
3. (a) Lk.’s Gospel has joy as one of its basic themes. Already in the birth
narrative the note is clearly heard. Zechariah is promised joy and gladness; many
will rejoice at the birth of John (Lk. 1:14) because of what God is now about to do
on behalf of his people (cf. 2:15). When Elizabeth meets the mother of the Saviour
(cf. 2:11) the child leaps for joy in her womb (en agalliasei, “‘for joy’, 1:44). Jubilant
praise of God, in the majestic language of the OT Psalms, is expressed in the Mag-
nificat of Mary (égalliasen, “‘rejoiced’’, 1:47) and in the hymn of Zechariah (1 : 68 ff.).
The basis and content of this great joy is the Christmas message that in Jesus
God has visited and redeemed his people (1:68), that he has taken care of lost
mankind, as he had promised to the fathers (1:55) and to the prophets (1:70), and
that he has good will (eudokia, 2:14) towards men.
Joy is an important consequence of Jesus’ —> miracles (13:17). The seventy
disciples may share in his power over evil spirits and be filled with joy and pride
(10:17), but joy in God’s electing love counts for still more: “But rejoice that your
names are written in heaven” (10:20; cf. Matt. 7:22 f.). God deals mercifully with
the lost; everything depends upon that. There 1s joy in heaven over one sinner who
repents (Lk. 15:7, 10, 23). Indeed, the whole of Lk. 15 with its parables of the lost
sheep, the lost coin and the lost son presents Jesus calling upon men to rejoice with
him over the lost returning to the Father (15:6, 9, 32).
358
JOY
In contrast with the note of fear and awe which concludes the authentic text of
Mk. (16:8), the conclusion of Lk. is remarkable for its amazement and over-
flowing joy (Lk. 24:11, 41, 52). V. 46 might be regarded as a resumé of Lk.’s
entire Gospel. Following upon the age of Jesus comes the age of the church (v. 47),
when repentance will be preached in his name. (Here too there 1s the implication
that repentance brings joy!) This is the message which will be carried beyond the
boundaries of Israel and preached to all nations.
(b) This process is recorded in the Acts, where there are repeated expressions of
joy over the irresistible worldwide expansion of the church. There is first of all the
joy of the — apostles in suffering shame and persecution for Christ’s sake (5:41;
cf. Matt. 5:11 f.). Men experience such joy through the enabling of the Holy ~
Spirit (13:52; cf. 7:55). Persecution cannot halt the victorious course of the gospel
(20:24 v.l. meta charas “with joy’). There is joy over the ingathering of the
Gentiles (11:23; 13:48; 15:3). When the gospel is preached to the Gentiles and
they are baptized, the persons concerned are filled with joy (8:8, 39; 15:31).
4. In the Gospel of John the eschatological term chara pepléromené, perfect
joy, fullness of joy (likewise in | Jn. 1:4; 2 Jn. 12), is an important feature. It
occurs as early as 3:27, where John the Baptist’s joy is now full on account of the
‘bridegroom’, the promised revealer of heavenly truth (cf. Matt. 9:14f. par.
Mk. 2:18 f., Lk. 5:33 f.). The eschatological hour has now arrived, in which con-
tinuous sowing exists side by side with the harvest time (4:35 f.), and in which
Jesus is already accomplishing the work he was given to do (4:34). Abraham in
heaven joins in the rejoicing over this day when the harvest begins to be gathered
(8:56). The perfect joy which Jesus has, because he is in full communion with the
Father (14:20) and does his will (4:34), is to be granted to the disciples also (15:11).
This he asks from the Father (17:13), and therefore exhorts his own to abide in
him (15:4) and in his love (15:9). His work of love is completed as he lays down
his life for his “‘friends’’ (15:13); it will only be fully revealed, however, when he
goes away from them (16:10). But he does not leave them behind as ~ orphans
(14:18). He prays the Father to send the paraklétos (14:16, 26; — Advocate),
manifests himself to them as the risen one (14:19; 20:20 “the disciples rejoiced
[echarésan]’’), and promises them that prayer in his name will be heard (15:7, 16).
The world cannot take away this joy and consolation any more than it can take
away the — peace which he gives (14:27; 16:33), for they are grounded in —>
revelation and do not belong to this world. This is the reason why his disciples
are to be separate from the world and are to expect the world’s hatred and persecu-
tion (15:19; 16:2). But fear is banished because Jesus has overcome the world
(16:33; cf. 1 Jn. 1:4). Present sadness will be turned into joy (16:22). This escha-
tological joy “is not described as a psychic condition of rapture but is defined as
the situation in which believers no longer need to ask for anything” (R. Bultmann,
The Gospel of John, 1971, 583).
5. The Pauline Epistles testify to the paradox that Christian joy is to be found
only in the midst of sadness, affliction and care. Indeed, this is precisely where it
gives proof of its power.
(a) This joy has its source beyond mere earthly, human joy. It is joy en kyrio, in
the Lord, and therefore outside ourselves. This is why Paul constantly reminds his
readers of its existence and exhorts them to manifest it (Phil. 3:1; 4:4, 10; Rom.
359
JOY
12:12; 2 Cor. 6:10). It is the “joy of faith’? (Phil. 1:25; Rom. 15:13). It has its
basis in the — hope and confidence of — faith, which despite all fightings and
fears (2 Cor. 7:5) is certain of justification through Christ (Rom. 8:31 f.) and looks
forward to his return as the risen Lord. As the joy of faith, it is also a — fruit of
the — Spirit (Gal. 5:22), and is spoken of as joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17;
1 Thess. 1:6). It is thus a spiritual gift, and in this respect approximates to the idea
of charis, — grace. Because faith and its consequent joy do not come from our-
selves, Paul can be confident and rejoice even when Christ is preached with base
motives. The important thing is that God should do his gracious work and that
as many men as possible should share in the gospel (Phil. 1:5 f., 15-18).
(b) In 2 Cor. Paul places joy in direct contrast to thlipsis, affliction (—
Persecution, Tribulation), by which he means not only the distress caused by out-
ward trials, but also the sorrow aroused by his apostolic rebukes. He protests to the
Corinthians that “‘we work with you [synergoi esmen] for your joy” (2 Cor. 1:24).
He wrote as he did not to cause thlipsis (2:4) but that his joy, which is joy en
kyrio, “in the Lord” (13:11; cf. Phil 3:1), might be shared by all (2:3). The lives
of the Corinthians are to be ruled not by passive resignation or the worldly grief
(lypé) which produces death (7:10), but by the joy of a purified faith. Having
sharply rebuked them earlier, Paul has regained his confidence in them (7:13), for
his admonition has had a salutary effect. Indeed, he almost implies that he has been
too severe (7:11). Since his anxiety has been removed by Titus’ report (7:16), he
now has even stronger grounds for rejoicing.
(c) Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians from prison (possibly in Ephesus)
and at the time was still uncertain of the outcome of his trial. There is evidence that
he felt lonely (2:20f.), and that faithful preaching of the gospel was in jeopardy
(1:15 ff.; 2:21). Once again there was thlipsis (4:14; cf. Col. 1:24), occasion for
anxiety. Yet there were also grounds for thankfulness and unmitigated joy:
thankfulness for the participation of the Philippians in the gospel (1:5), and joy
over the continuing proclamation of Christ (1:18). Constrained by the gospel and
by Christ himself, Paul exhorts his readers to rejoice together with him (2:17 f.),
to cast care behind them (4:16), and to be of one mind in the fellowship of the
Spirit (2:1 f.). What if there is occasion for anxiety; what if Paul is soon to meet
his death, so long as Christ is magnified in his body (1:20)!
In Phil. joy is thus a continuous “defiant ‘Nevertheless’ ”’ (K. Barth, The Epistle
to the Philippians, 1962, 120; cf. Phil. 2:17; 4:4). This ‘“‘nevertheless’’ draws its
strength not from itself but from untiring prayer which lays every need before God
(4:6; cf. 1 Thess. 5:16; Col. 1:11). It takes heart at the spread of the gospel through-
out the world (1:5f.; 1 Thess. 3:9; Col. 2:5) and at the flourishing growth of
missionary churches (Phil. 4:10; cf. 1 Thess. 2:20: “For you are our glory and
joy’). But above all it is joy in the Lord (Phil. 4:4).
(d) The present period of trial and distress is limited. The Lord is at hand!
(Phil. 4:5; cf. 1 Thess. 5:2 f.; 3:3). Hence joy is based primarily on the — hope
that after suffering together we shall be glorified together (Rom. 8:17). This joyous
and confident waiting for the day of Christ puts our present experience into true
perspective. Gaudium in domino parit veram aequitatem: “‘Joy in the Lord brings
forth true peace of mind” (J. A. Bengel, quoted by Barth, op. cit., 121). On the
one hand, this “gentleness” (Phil. 4:5 RV mg.) gives us leisure from ourselves so
360
Joy /JUDGMENT
that we can sympathize with others (Rom. 12:15). On the other hand, it reminds
us that our present joys and sorrows belong to this life only and are not our final
lot (1 Cor. 7:30; 2 Cor. 6:10).
6. This Pauline teaching about joy in affliction and temptation proved its value
when the later NT epistles were being written. By this time, the persecution of
Christians was already so severe as to threaten the very existence of the church
(1 Pet. 4:13; cf. Rom. 8:17). But being robbed of their material goods could not
deprive them of their joy (Heb. 10:34). This is well illustrated by the last lines of
Luther’s hymn Ein’ feste Burg, inspired by Ps. 46:
And, though they take our life,
Goods, honour, children, wife,
Yet is their profit small;
These things shall vanish all:
The city of God remaineth (Carlyle’s translation).
For all that, persecution still brought very real distress (Heb. 12:11). Hence
believers are urged to exercise patience (Heb. 10:36) and to continue obediently in
sound doctrine (Heb. 12:17). Christ has voluntarily given up his own joy and taken
upon himself the shame of the cross. Only looking to him can we obtain patience
and endurance in temptation (Heb. 12:2; cf. 1 Pet. 1:8 f.).
Jas. 1:2 comes close to teaching Christians to rejoice in martyrdom (cf. Acts
5:41). In the course of the church’s history, however, this has often degenerated
into virtually seeking martyrdom for its own sake. Jas. 4:9 f. is not to be taken
legalistically, as if this were the saving faith of the NT. Such a view is precluded by
obedience to the risen Lord. For it would deny the ultimate, once-for-all value of
his work on the cross. E. Beyreuther, G. Finkenrath
— Cry, — Lament, — Laugh, — Suffer
(a). W. Beilner, “Joy”, EBT II 438-42; R. Bultmann, agalliaomai etc., TDNT I 19 ff.; euphraind
etc., TDNT II 772-75; and The Gospel of John, 1971, 505 ff.; H. Conzelmann and W. Zimmerli,
chairoé etc., TDNT TX 359-415; D. W. Harvey, “‘Rejoice Not, O Israel!”’ in B. W. Anderson and W.
Harrelson, eds., [srael’s Prophetic Heritage, 1962, 116-27; J. Moltmann, Theology and Joy, 1973.
(b). M. Ammermann, Die religidse Freude in den Schriften des Alten Bundes, 1942; E. G. Gulin,
Die Freude im Neuen Testament, III, 1932-36; U. Holtzmeister, “‘ “‘Gaudete in Domino semper’
et ‘Beati qui lugent’ ”’, Verbum Domini 22, 1942, 257-62; P. Humbert, “‘Laetari et exsultare dans le
vocabulaire religieux de l’Ancien Testament”, Revue d’ Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 22,
1942, 185-214; and Opuscules d’un Hébraisant, 1958, 119-45; R. Laurentin, Structure et Théologie
de Luc I-II, 1964; W. Nauck, “‘Freude im Leiden”, ZNW 46, 1955, 68-80; J. Perrier, La Joie dans
l’ Evangile de Jésus, 1962; B. -Reicke, Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos in Verbindung mit der alt-
christlichen Agapenfeier, 1951; H. Rusche, “Die Freude: Ein biblischer Grundbegriff’”’, Bux 5,
1964, 141 ff.; E. Schick and A. Auer, ‘“‘Freude’’, L7K IV 361 ff.; A. B. du Toit, Der Aspekt der
Freude im urchristlichen Abendmahl, 1965; R. Voeltzel, Das Lachen des Herrn, 1961.
Judgment, Judge, Deliver, Judgment Seat
It 1s sometimes necessary to examine whether human behaviour conforms to
certain standards. Such examination, together with the ultimate assessment and,
if necessary, condemnation, is expressed in the NT by the extensive word-group
connected with krino, to judge. Since paradidomi can mean “‘to hand over” (for
361
JUDGMENT
judgment or punishment) it is also discussed here together with béma, judgment
seat, and katadikazo, condemn. However, in view of its basic meaning “‘to transmit”’
this word-group is further dealt with under — Teach.
| pie | K pia (Krima), dispute, decision, verdict, judgment;
Es Kpivo §$6(krind), separate, judge, consider, decide;
avak piv@ (anakrino), investigate, examine; x pioic (krisis), decision, crisis; K pIt4¢
(krités), a judge; avyK pivw (synkrind), compare, interpret; katax pia (katakrima),
punishment, condemnation; xKataxpivw (katakrind), condemn; KatdaKpiaic
(katakrisis), condemnation; kataylvwoKw (kataginodsko), condemn.
cL krima, judgment, is found once in Aeschylus but does not acquire a clear
meaning until quite late (from the LXX onwards). It is formed from krino, to
judge, which in its numerous compounds (both nouns and vbs.) had come to
occupy a major place in legal terminology. krino did not originate as a legal term,
however, nor are its meanings restricted to the legal sphere.
1. (a) From its basic meaning to separate, sift (so in Homer), the word acquired
in Gk. literature its own shades of meaning in connection with human value-
judgments: to discriminate, divide, distinguish, select, acknowledge, approve,
estimate, prefer. At the same time the “assessment”? aspect became prominent,
so that krind means to judge, pronounce judgment, decide, and also to be of the
opinion, to purpose. In the mid. and pass. it means to dispute, debate, or fight.
(b) The compound synkrino reveals a similar process in its meanings to compare,
judge, measure. It also means (like krind used in the mid.) to explain, expound, and
interpret (dreams).
(c) anakrino, found from Thucydides onwards, expresses the questioning process
_ which leads to a judgment: to examine, cross-examine, interrogate, inquire, and
investigate.
(d) The noun krima, like the vb., embraces a variety of meanings: decision,
verdict, and also controversy, dispute.
(e) In this meaning krima is parallel to its derivative krisis, which means decision
(of a referee), crisis (in battle, sickness, etc.), and also separation, selection, dissen-
sion, dispute.
(f) The person making the decision or selection is called krités: critic, judge,
referee (the word is very rare in secular Gk., and in Attic and Ion. Gk. is never
used for a lawcourt judge). Derived from this is the substantival adj. kritikos (found
from Plato onwards), a competent, experienced judge.
2. (a) krino as a technical legal term means to judge, to bring to judgment, or
condemn. The judgment, krima, can be divine or human, and the judges, kritai,
authorized office-bearers or unauthorized persons. Divine judicial authority is
such that generally judgment and its effect are seen as one, so that kKrima means not
only judgment but also condemnation, damnation and punishment.
(b) The compound katakrino has a similar meaning: to condemn. The rare noun
katakrisis means condemnation. The noun katakrima, is first found in the Ist
cent. B.c. with the meaning punishment, damnation. Its meaning in the Corpus
Papyrorum Raineri (ed. 1895) is noteworthy: legal liability in respect of a piece of
land.
362
JUDGMENT
(c) The word autokatakritos is found in Philo and occurs sporadically elsewhere.
Formed from the adj. and the prefix auto, self, it has no longer a strictly legal but
rather a moral character and means self-condemned. Another rare compound is
prokrima (not found until the 2nd cent. A.D.), a technical legal term for the interim
judgment reached en route to the final verdict; then also, morally, prejudice,
preconceived idea (which stands in the way of a judicial decision). A moral assess-
ment is also expressed by kataginosko, found from Aeschylus and Herodotus
onwards, meaning to condemn, literally to observe something (bad) in someone,
to catch in the act, to recognize as guilty, to despise.
OT 1. In the LXX krino is used mainly as a translation of the Heb. words Sapat, din
and rib. Thus krind, to judge, acquired a meaning which went beyond its general
Gk. usage, for din means not only to judge, but also to punish, wrangle, vindicate,
and obtain justice for a person (Gen. 15:14; 2 Sam. 19:9; Gen. 30:6; Deut. 32:36;
Ps. 54:3; Jer. 5:28). rib means to quarrel, to litigate, to carry on a lawsuit (Gen.
26:21; Jdg. 871; 21:22; 1 Sam. 24:16). Ssapat, which occurs the most frequently,
adds still further shades of meaning, so that to judge comes to mean “‘to rule”
(Exod. 2:14; 1 Sam. 8:20; 2 Sam. 15:4, 6). He who judges brings salvation, peace
and deliverance, especially to the persecuted and oppressed (cf. Deut. 10:18).
“Give the king thy justice, O God, and thy righteousness unto the royal son! May
he judge thy people with righteousness, and thy poor with justice” (Ps. 72:1 f.).
The judges (LXX kritai) who in Jdg. are called “‘great’’ are the deliverers, helpers or
saviours, raised up by God. They obtain justice for the tribes of Israel in the face
of their enemies, annihilate or drive out their oppressors, and so bring salvation,
rest and peace to the land (Jdg. 3:9, 15). kKrima can also mean statute (Lev. 18:5;
20:22), and in Jer. 51:10 the Heb. s*daqdah, righteousness, is translated by krima.
2. In Israel justice was originally dispensed not according to absolute moral
standards but with a view to restoring peace within the community concerned,
whether the family, the tribe, or the nation. In difficult cases it meant removing the
offending member. After the conquest justice was dispensed partly in the context
of family and tribe by the heads of families and tribal elders, and partly in the
context of the local community by the elders sitting in the gate of a town or village,
all full citizens having right to speak (Ruth 4:1 ff.). In Jerusalem officials (called
commanders in Deut. 1:15 RSV; princes e.g. Isa. 1:23; Jer. 26) were appointed
as judges. Certain officials whose function is not quite clear were called “judges
of Israel’’. According to M. Noth, a list of these is seen in the enumeration of the so-
called “minor judges” in Jdg. 10:1-5; 12:7-15 (The History of Israel, 1958, 101).
3. In Israel all justice is ascribed to God: Yahweh is Lord and judge (Deut. 1:17).
As judge he helps his people (Jdg. 11:27; 2 Sam. 18:31). He never deviates from
justice (Ps. 7:12), and will not suffer his honour to be brought into disrepute.
Heaven and earth or the peoples of the earth are often called upon to act as a
tribunal (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 2:12; Mic. 6:1; Ps. 50:1-6). He judges the nations (Gen.
11:1 ff.; Ps.67:5; Amos 1:2; Joel 4:2; Mal. 3:2 ff.), especially on the “‘day of
Yahweh’, when he will destroy all ungodliness (Isa. 2:12-18; 13:9; Jer. 46:10;
Ezek. 30:3 ff.; Zeph. 1:7-18; — Present, art. hémera). He comes to the aid of
anyone suffering violence and injustice (Gen. 4:9 ff.). One must submit to his
inscrutable judgment (Job). His judgments are just, i.e. they are in harmony with
363
JUDGMENT
his faithfulness, whereby he espouses the cause of his chosen people, guides them
and ensures their safety. Thus God’s judgment is motivated by love, grace and
mercy, and its outcome is salvation (Isa. 30:18; Ps. 25:6-9; 33:5; 103:6 ff.; 146: 7).
“He will vindicate his people and have compassion on his servants’’ (Deut. 32:36
RSV).
4. In the judgment discourses of the prophets it is God’s judgment upon Israel
which receives most attention (Amos 5:18; 8 and 9; Hos. 4:1; Mic. 1; Jer. 2:4-9;
Isa. 41:1 ff.; 48:1 ff.; 50:1 ff.). Since Israel is the elect nation, it will be judged
(Amos 3:1 ff.; Ezek. 20:33-38). Moreover, Yahweh the judge is — king of the
universe and uses nations and powers as instruments of his judgment. The key to the
message of the major prophets “‘lies in the light of the fact that, as far as saving
history is concerned they see an entirely new day dawning for Israel; they see a
new action of God approaching her, which will bring with it heavy punishments but
also mysterious acts of preservation. In view of this — so the prophets are convinced
—it will no longer be enough to appeal to the old saving appointments, for this
new divine saving activity, and it alone, is to decide the question of the existence or
non-existence of Israel’? (G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, II, 1965, 395; cf.
Isa. 5:1 ff.; Hos. 13:5—-9; Jer. 31:31 ff.).
5. In the post-exilic period the description of God’s judgment acquired certain
apocalyptic features. Its character as punishment is emphasized: God’s enemies,
whether men or supernatural powers, will be dashed to pieces (a host on high,
Eth.Enoch 10:6; God and Magog, Sib. 3). The “congregation of wickedness” will
be annihilated, while the “‘sons of light’ will attain salvation (cf. 1QS 3 and 4;
1QM 3:9-19 of the Qumran community). The doctrine of retribution led men to
regard any calamity as God’s judgment upon them for some offence; this in turn
had an adverse effect upon their social life, and shook their faith in divine justice.
Belief in a further judgment after death (Ps.Sol. 3:1 ff.; Eth.Enoch) offered a way
out of this mental anguish, since it meant that the process of exact retribution
could be lengthened. Judgment would still fall, even though men might not live to
see it. God or the Son of man is the judge of the world at the “last day” (2 Esd. 7;
Eth.Enoch).
NT 1. In addition to the metaphors of harvest (— seed), sifting, and separation
(cf. Matt. 13:30f., 40f., 49; 24:31, 40 f.; 25:31 ff.) the NT contains a great
deal of legal and semi-legal language where krima, krino and their derivatives are
used with the same complex meanings as are found in Gk. literature and in the
LXX.
(a) krind has the following meanings: to distinguish, give preference, approve
(Rom. 14:5a to esteem one day as better than another; Rom. 14:5b to approve
each day, i.e. esteem all days alike). In addition it means to consider, regard as
(Acts 13:46; 16:15; 26:8); to speak or think ill of, to decide, to judge (Matt. 7:1 f;
Lk. 7:43; Acts 4:19; 15:19; Rom. 14:3 ff.; 1 Cor. 4:5; 10:15; 29; 2 Cor. 5:14;
Col. 2:16). prokrima is similarly used (“without prejudice’, 1 Tim. 5:21). krind also
means to decide, resolve (Acts 3:13 and passim; Rom. 14:13; 1 Cor. 2:2; 5:3; 7:37;
Tit. 3:12). synkrind means to interpret (1 Cor. 2:13, ‘interpreting spiritual truths
to those who possess the Spirit’), and to compare (2 Cor. 10:12). anakriné occurs
with the meaning to inquire (Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 10:25, 27; 14:24), to examine,
364
JUDGMENT
interrogate (Lk. 23:14; Acts 4:9; 12:19; 24:8; 28:18; 1 Cor. 4:3; 9:3), to judge of,
to form an estimate of (1 Cor. 2:14).
(b) krind and krima are very frequently used in the NT in a strictly judicial sense,
krind meaning to judge; in the pass. to bring to trial, condemn, punish; in the
mid. to dispute.
Men judge according to the — law (Jn. 18:31; Acts 23:3; 24:6). The apostles
and the church judge (1 Cor. 5:12; 1 Cor. 6:2 f.; the world and angels). Paul is
put on trial (Acts 23:6). The people cannot come to a right judgment (Lk. 12:57).
The wicked servant is punished on the basis of his own statements (Lk. 19:22;
— > Punishment). People go to law to settle disputes (Matt. 5:40; 1 Cor. 6:6). The
noun krima is used similarly: the disciples of Jesus should not judge, and with the
judgment that a man pronounces on others he himself will be judged (Matt. 7:1 ff.).
The Christians in Corinth have disputes (lawsuits) with one another (1 Cor. 6:7).
krisis is similarly used: judgment by the authorities (Matt. 5:21); judgment passed
by one man upon another (Jn. 7:24), or by the angels upon the devil (2 Pet. 2:11;
Jude 9). krités means the authorized (Matt. 5:25; Lk. 12:14, 58; 18:2) and the
unauthorized (Jas. 2:4; 4:11) judge, also anyone who brings injustice to light (Matt.
12:27). autokatakritos (only in Tit. 3:11) is the man who is self-condemned.
kataginosko (1 Jn. 3:20 f.; Gal. 2:11) means to be recognized as guilty and con-
demned by one’s own heart or conduct. Condemnation by men is also expressed
by katakrino: the people of — Nineveh will appear at the last judgment with this
generation and will condemn it (Matt. 12:41; cf. Heb. 11:7). ““Has no one con-
demned you?” (Jn. 8:10, cf. 11). “In passing judgment upon another you condemn
yourself” (Rom. 2:1). ““Who is to condemn?” (Rom. 8:34). Jesus is condemned to
death (Matt. 20:18; 27:3; Mk. 14:64). The noun katakrisis occurs twice: “‘dis-
pensation of condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:9) and “not to your condemnation” (2
Cor. 7:3). When combined with the genitive, krima tés pornés means the judgment
of the harlot (Rev. 17:1), and krima thanatou capital punishment (Lk. 24:20).
LXX influence appears when krima means rule: authority to rule is given to
the disciples and martyrs (Lk. 22:30; Rev. 20:4); the twelve apostles rule over the
twelve tribes (Matt. 19:28); likewise when krisis means justice (Matt. 12:18;
23:23; Acts 8:33).
God and Jesus judge (Jn. 5:22, 29f. and often; Acts 6:10). They are called
krités, judge (2 Tim. 4:8; Heb. 12:23; Jas. 4:12; 5:9; Acts 10:42), and God’s
word is called kritikos, a discerner (Heb. 4:12). When the passive form is used, the
reference is similarly to the activity of the divine judge (Rev. 11:8). Christ judges
the living and the dead (2 Tim. 4:1; | Pet. 4:5 f.), the secrets of men (Rom. 2:16),
the world (Acts 17:31), every man according to his works (1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 20:12 f.
cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). The noun krima is used in the same way: Jesus has come to bring
judgment (Jn. 9:39); God’s judgments are unsearchable (Rom. 11:33); his activity
as a judge begins with the church (1 Pet. 4:17); future and eternal judgment is in his
hands (Acts 24:25; Heb. 6:2). Divine judgment often includes — punishment
(Jn. 3:17 f.; Rom. 2:12; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:13 f.; 2 Thess. 2:12; Heb. 10:30; 13:4;
Jas. 5:9). God’s condemnation is just (Rom. 2:2 f.; 3:8) and swift (2 Pet. 2:3).
The prince of this world is condemned (Jn. 16:11). Divine condemnation, issuing,
as the word implies, in damnation, is expressed by katakrima (Rom. 5:16, 18; 8:1).
Damnation is also expressed by the verb katakrino, which can have God, as well
365
JUDGMENT
as men, for its subject: God condemned sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). He has turned
Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes and condemned them (2 Pet. 2:6). When we are
judged, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world
(1 Cor. 11:32); cf. also the passive in Mk. 16:16 and Rom. 14:23. krisis is fre-
quently used synonymously with krima, judgment: the judgment of God or of
Christ (Jn. 5:30; 2 Thess. 1:5); the day (hour) of judgment (Matt. 10:15 and often;
2 Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1 Jn. 4:17; Jude 6; Rev. 14:7; 1 Tim. 5:24; Heb. 9:27). Divine
judgment brings separation (Jn. 3:19) and destruction (Heb. 10:27). He who hears
Jesus’ word and believes him does not come into judgment (Jn. 5:24). The dead
who have done evil will arise to judgment (Jn. 5:29).
2. Just as in the OT all judgment is ascribed to God, so also in the NT all human
judgment and punishment stands within the wider context of God’s sovereign
judgment, a principle expressed with the utmost clarity in Matt. 7:1: “Judge not,
that you be not judged’’. The church of Christ has been entrusted with the task of
judging in matters which affect its members (1 Cor. 5:12; 6:2). Human relation-
ships are to be regulated by love, even extending to love of one’s enemies, but
measured by the standard of God’s perfect righteousness, no man remains righteous
in God’s sight. All men fall under his wrath, and are without excuse (Rom. 1-3).
This is the reason why ultimately no man has a right to judge another. Dire
warnings are addressed to the unmerciful and the arrogant who are blind to their
own lost condition, who are not ready to forgive and to pray for their enemies
(Matt. 5:23 ff., 43 ff.; 7:1-5; Lk. 18:9 ff.).
The unsearchableness of God’s judgments (Rom. 11:33) means that the doctrine
of retribution can no longer be rigidly upheld. The human principle of “‘tit for
tat’? has no place in the divine judge’s dealings with men (Lk. 6:32; 13:1—5; Jn.
9:2 f.). That God is judge, however, is basic to the NT, not merely as regards the
frequency with which it is mentioned but also from the point of view of content.
It is a doctrine which impinges upon many other major aspects of the NT message
(— Glory; — Righteousness; —> Grace; — Lord; — Love; — Reward; > Guilt;
—> Punishment; — Sin; — Forgiveness; — Reconciliation; — Anger, Wrath). On
the other hand, words like “‘judgment”’, “‘to judge’, etc., are associated with human
legal concepts, and as such are incapable of expressing the unsearchableness of
God, particularly when his unsearchable decrees reveal his love. This is the other
side of God’s character, displayed throughout the NT, but in such a way as to show
the unmistakable influence of the OT and of Jewish apocalyptic.
Jesus, like John the Baptist, preached by word and deed the nearness of divine
judgment, which stirs men up both to hope and to repentance (Lk. 13:6 ff.) and
brings woe upon the unrepentant (Matt. 11:20 ff.; 12:41 f.). The fact of coming
judgment means that all men are advancing towards God’s final verdict on them-
selves and their works. Before God nothing is forgotten, whether deed or word.
The judgment of God is the great reality of man’s life (Matt. 10:28), and the only
way of escaping condemnation is to be forgiven.
For Paul and the early church, Jesus is the judge of all the world, as God the
Father is. Divine patience still gives men time to repent and believe in Christ who
for us has been made “‘to be sin, who knew no sin, so that in him we might become
the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 3:23 ff.; Gal. 3:13; Col. 2:13 ff.).
The judge is the Saviour. Judgment already rests upon unbelievers because they
366
JUDGMENT
refuse the Saviour, while believers escape condemnation (Jn. 3:16 ff.; 11:25 f.).
They have confidence as they anticipate the day of judgment, and this confidence
issues in ethical results here and now. The eschatological tension in the statements
about judgment is broken neither by the emphasis in Jn. upon its being present,
nor by the emphasis in Rev. upon its being future, though the apocalyptic elements
figure differently.
The principles of judgment in the NT are a development of those found in OT
prophecy. It is the elect one who is judged, for divine judgment falls upon Christ
crucified. Yet this is God’s saving work, for in judging Christ, he remains faithful
to his elect people and honour, and bound to uphold his covenant. The wrath of
God is fully revealed only by the gospel (Rom. 1-3), as the “word of the cross”’ is
preached. Christ “‘is set for the fall and rising of many” (Lk. 2:34).
W. Schneider
| 7a padidw@pl | ma padidaypl (paradidémi), deliver up, give up, hand over.
CL paradidémi, from Pindar onwards, has a wide range of uses and denotes all
aspects of deliberate giving or giving over: to deliver up, to give away, to offer,
to give up, to hand over, to betray. As a legal term, it means to bring before a court,
to deliver up a prisoner (eis with the acc. expressing destination and purpose). The
person concerned is delivered up e.g. to the dark chaos of doom (magic papyri),
to death (papyri) or to discipline (Demetrius of Phaleron). It can cover the handing
over of a captive (where this has a minimal effect on the situation of the person
concerned), right through to the reprehensible act of betrayal, whereby a free man
of good repute, who may well be innocent, is ruined.
In its connection with paradosis, tradition, the transmission of doctrine, the vb.
is dealt with under —> Teach, art. paradidomi.
OT The LXX uses paradidémi about 200 times. Although in the Heb. text 26
different words underlie the Gk. vb., paradidomi stands chiefly (about 150
times) for the Hebrew natan, which primarily means to give, but secondarily (with a
preposition) to hand over, to deliver. The formula paradounai eis cheiras tinos, to
deliver into someone’s hands, is not found in secular Gk., but in the LXX it is
very frequent and is carried over from there into the NT. The formula stems ulti-
mately from the wars of Yahweh. Before a battle began, a priest or a prophet
would be asked to consult the oracle, and if all was well, the answer would be: “I
(Yahweh) deliver them into your hand, O Israel.” If Israel was disobedient, then
Yahweh would deliver them into the hands of strange peoples (Jdg. 2:14, plun-
derers; 6:13, Midianites; Isa. 65:12, the sword; Jer. 32:4, the king of Babylon).
In the language of the Deuteronomist the old formula came to mean the total
annihilation of all the earlier inhabitants of the land (e.g. Deut. 1:8). From then
on it became even more widely used. Its origin accounts for the fact that the subject
of the vb. is almost always God, and that in practically every case it implies handing
over to ruin, to defeat, to annihilation, to death. In Isa. 43:3 it is said that Yahweh
has given Egypt, Ethiopia and Seba as a ransom for Israel, i.e. he has inflicted
defeat upon them that he may obtain Israel for himself. An analogy 1s found in
367
JUDGMENT
Isa. 53:5 where Yahweh’s Servant is said to have been delivered over to death “‘for
our transgressions’ for the deliverance of many. This doubtless means that his
own people were guilty of betraying Yahweh’s Servant, but his death awoke them
out of their sin of rejecting him. (For fuller discussion — Son, art. pais theou.)
NT 1. In the NT paradidomi occurs in all 120 times; of these 84 are in the Gospels,
13 in Acts, only 19 altogether in the Pauline Epistles (6 in Rom., 7 in | Cor., 3
in Eph., | each in 2 Cor., Gal., 1 Tim.), 3 in 1 and 2 Pet., 1 in Jude. It does not
occur at all in Heb., Rev., and the Epistles of Jn.
In the NT paradosis never occurs in the sense of handing over or betrayal, but
only in the sense of the transmission of doctrine (— Teach, art. paradosis).
2. The basic meaning of the vb. in the NT is to deliver up to judgment and death.
The statement that John the Baptist was delivered up (paredothé, Matt. 4:12)
signifies his imprisonment leading to his execution. The adversary delivers to the
judge (Matt. 5:25), and the judge to the officer (Lk. 12:58). Jesus’ followers will
be delivered to the council (Matt. 10:17) and to synagogues (Lk. 21:12), and will
be exposed to persecution and oppression (Matt. 24:9). Brother is delivered up
by brother to death (Mk. 13:12), cf. also Acts 8:3 and 22:4 (Saul in his persecution
of Christians) and Acts 12:4 (the arrest of Peter).
3. Most of the passages in which paradidodmi occurs refer, however, to Jesus’
announcement of his suffering and to the passion itself (— Suffer). He is delivered
into the hands of men (Matt. 17:22 par. Mk. 9:31, Lk. 9:44), to the high priests
and scribes (Matt. 20:18), to the Gentiles (Matt. 20:19 par. Mk. 10:33, Lk. 18:22),
to Pilate (Matt. 27:2), to the death sentence (Lk. 24:20) and to crucifixion (Matt.
26:2). Judas, the person who delivers him up, is the betrayer. The frequent use of
paradidomi in the NT, particularly in the passion narratives, reflects the fact that
it is a technical term used in law and in martyrology. The words of institution of the
—» Last Supper contain paradidémi only once (1 Cor. 11:23), with reference to
Christ’s atoning death: en té nykti hé paredideto, ‘“‘on the night in which he was
betrayed [or delivered up]”; cf. the hyper hymon “for you” in v. 24.
4. The vb. is occasionally used for deliverance to something other than a human
court of justice: to shameful lusts (Rom. 1:24); the Gentiles give themselves up to
unchastity and this in itself is a judgment (Eph. 4:19); Israel was given over to
worshipping the host of heaven (Acts 7:42). In 1 Cor. 5:5 and 1 Tim. 1:20 Paul
delivers men to Satan (— Destroy, art. olethros). According to Jewish tradition,
—> Satan was the executor of the divine judgment.
5. Finally paradidomi is found in the context of dying, i.e. of giving up one’s life:
to give up one’s spirit, i.e. to expire (Jn. 19:30); to give up one’s life, i.e. to risk
one’s life (Acts 15:26); the Son of God who gave up himself (Gal. 2:20; cf. Eph.
5:25 and Rom. 8:32).
6. Only in a few passages does paradidomi occur in a context other than that of
judgment and death. Thus the fact that divine power is delivered to Jesus is an
evidence of his messianic sovereignty (Matt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22; Matt. 28:18; cf.
1 Cor. 15:24). But the devil also asserts that he can grant power to whomsoever
he will, since it has been placed at his absolute disposal (Lk. 4:6). In Acts 14:26
Paul and Barnabas in Antioch are commended or committed to the grace of God,
1.e. placed under its protective power. H. Beck
368
JUDGMENT
| bia | BAyua (béma), judgment seat.
CL In secular Gk. béma is used in the sense of step or stride, as in walking (Pindar,
Aeschylus). It has also the associative connotation of a pace as a unit of mea-
sure. The word is also used as a platform for a public speaker and, in legal contexts,
it denotes the place where litigants stood for trial (Demosthenes, Aeschines).
OT In the LXX béma stands for two Heb. words midrak and migdal. The word
midrak, from the root darak (tread), denotes the area covered by placing down
the foot, hence a footbreadth. It occurs only in Deut. 2:5 where it is used in the
sense of a unit of measure. In this context the Lord affirmed to Moses that he
would not allow the people of Israel to take any of the territory belonging to the
descendants of Esau, ‘‘not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on.’ A
somewhat similar expression utilizes the word mdqém (place) rather than midrak
(Deut. 11:24; Jos. 1:3). In this latter expression the emphasis is more geographical
and the concept of space or area is minimized. The word migdal, from the root
gadal (grow up, become great) chiefly denotes a tower, but is used in Neh. 8:4 of a
wooden platform on which Ezra stood to read from the book of the law. The word
is used in the same sense in the parallel passage in 1 Esd. 9:42. In Sir. 19:30 béma
occurs in the plur. (but in the v./. S? béma podos in the sing.) in the sense of the
steps of a man, i.e. his manner of walking which reveals his character. Eth.Enoch
62:3, 5 depicts the Son of man judging the mighty on his throne.
NT Inthe NT béma occurs once in the sense of step as a unit of measure (Acts 7:5).
It is found in the expression béma podos (‘‘a foot’s length” RSV), i.e. a small
area. The usage is similar to the Heb. expression in Deut. 2:5.
The word is used most frequently in the NT of the platform or dais on which was
placed a seat for an official. The béma was the platform from which orations were
made (Acts 12:21) as well as the place where civil officials held session to hear
certain legal cases and render judgment in such cases (Matt. 27:19; Jn. 19:13;
Acts 18:12, 16 f.; 25:6, 10, 17). Thus Jesus was brought before the béma of Pilate (cf.
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament,
19652, 24 ff.), and the Jews at Corinth accused Paul before the tribunal of the
Proconsul Gallio who drove them out, but ignored the beating of Sosthenes. The
remains of a public rostrum still stand among the ruins of Corinth (cf. O. Broneer,
“Corinth: Center of Paul’s Missionary Work in Greece’, BA 14, 1951, 91 f.).
Later Paul appeared before the béma of Festus at Caesarea.
The word was twice used by Paul in his letters of the judgment seat. Rom. 14:10
speaks of ‘“‘the judgment seat of God,” and the following verse cites Isa. 45:23
as confirmation that all men will appear before it (cf. also Phil. 2:10 f.). 2 Cor.
5:10 speaks of ‘‘the judgment seat of Christ’, drawing attention to the fact that
Christ will be the judge of all men (cf. Matt. 16:27; 25:31-46). In Rom. 14:10 ff.
the emphasis is on the réle of the litigant before the béma: ‘‘So each of us shall
give account of himself to God.” In 2 Cor. 5:10 the emphasis falls on the judgment
rendered: “‘So that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has
done in the body.”’ Both passages draw attention to the reversal of réles: Jesus who
(like his apostle) appeared before the judgment seat of men and suffered unjust
369
JUDGMENT
judgment will one day sit in righteous judgment over unjust men. But Paul reminds
his readers that believers are not exempt from this scrutiny and judgment. Even
though reconciled (cf. 2 Cor. 5:20 f.) and justified (Rom. 5:1; 8:1), they still have
to give account and have their work tested (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13 ff.).
T. McComiskey
Dene ice (katadikaz6), condemn; kKatadiky
| KATAOIKaCOD (katadiké), condemnation.
CL The vb. katadikazé means to condemn, render judgment against, in secular Gk.
(Herodotus, Lucian). The noun katadiké denotes a legal sentence or judgment
brought against someone.
oT katadikazo occurs in the LXX as the translation of the vb. rdsa‘ and its adj.
rasa as well as the vbs. ‘awat and Aub.
The vb. rasa‘ (be wicked) has the meaning to condemn as guilty in the hiphil and
it is this sense of the word that is reflected in katadikaz6 (Job 34:29; Pss. 36[37]:33;
93[94]:21). The adjectival form rasa‘ (guilty) occurs in Ps. 108(109):7.
The vb. ‘awat in the piel has the meaning bend or make crooked and hence, by
extension, means to pervert, subvert or falsify. It is used by Amos (8:5) of the
falsification of weights in dispensing food. In the LXX this word is translated by
katadikazo in Lam. 3:36 in the sense of subverting one in a cause.
katadikaz6 is used to translate the piel form of db (qal, be guilty; piel, make
guilty) in Dan. 1:10. In this context the word is used with “head”’ in the sense of
to make one’s head guilty, 1.e. to inculpate one and hence endanger his life.
In the Wisdom of Solomon katadikaz6o occurs 4 times always in the sense of
formal condemnation (Wis. 2:20; 11:10; 12:15; 17:11). The noun katadiké occurs
in Wis. 12:27 of the condemnation that was pronounced on those who do not heed
God.
NT katadikazo is always used in the NT in the sense of condemn, pass judgment
against, find guilty (Matt. 12:7, 37; Lk. 6:37; Jas. 5:6). This is particu-
larly clear in Matt. 12:37 where the word is contrasted with dikaioo (justify). In
Lk. 6:37 katadikazo is used in connection with krindé (judge) in which case it seems
to connote the formal act of passing judgment rather than the cognitive process
by which that judgment is reached (krind). The same concept is evident in the
metaphorical usage of the term by James in Jas. 5:6 where the use of the word
condemn represents the formal pronouncement of judgment before the execution
of the sentence: ““You have condemned, you have killed the righteous man.” The
noun katadiké occurs only once in the NT (Acts 25:15) in the sense of a sentence of
guilt. T. McComiskey
—»> Death, — Hell, — Life, — Present, — Punishment, — Resurrection, — Reward,
—»> Righteousness, — Satan, — Son of God
(a). A. Alt, ““The Origins of Israelite Law’’, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966,
79-132; J. A. Baird, The Justice of God in the Teaching of Jesus, 1963; K. Barth, ‘““The Com-
mand as the Judgment of God’’, CD, II, 2, 733-81; ‘‘The Judge Judged in our Place’’, and ““The
Judgment of God’’, CD, IV, 1, 211-83, 528-68; D. Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 1964; G. Bornkamm,
370
JUDGMENT
“The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1-3)’’, and ‘“‘Sin, Law and Death (Romans 7)’’, Early
Christian Experience, 1969, 47-70; 87-104; S. G. F. Brandon, The Judgment of the Dead: An
Historical and Comparative Study of the Idea of a Post-Mortem Judgment in the Major Religions,
1967; F. Biichsel and V. Hentrich, krinod etc., TDNT III 921-54; R. Bultmann, Theology of the
New Testament, I, 1952, 65-92; II, 33-69; and The Gospel of John, 1971, 257 ff., 278 ff.; R. H.
Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity,
or Hebrew, Jewish and Christian Eschatology, 19137; C. E. B. Cranfield, ““The Parable of the
Unjust Judge and the Eschatology of Luke-Acts’’, SJT 16, 1963, 297-301; H. Cunliffe-Jones,
‘““God’s Judgment of the Individual after Death”, London Quarterly Holborn Review 35, 1967,
116-28; J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 1970; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old
Testament, I, 1961, 371-87; II, see index; A. M. Fairhurst, ‘““The Problems Posed by the Severe
Sayings Attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels”, S/T 23, 1970, 77-91; L. Gaston, No Stone
on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, Supple-
ments to NovT 23, 1970; H. E. Guillebaud, The Righteous Judge: A Study of the Biblical Doctrine
of Everlasting Punishment, 1964; E. Kaésemann, “‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament”’,
New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 66-81; L. Koehler, Hebrew Man, 1956; J. P. Martin,
The Last Judgment in Protestant Theology from Orthodoxy to Ritschl, 1963; A. L. Moore, The
Parousia in the New Testament, Supplements to NovT 13, 1966; L. Morris, The Biblical Doctrine
of Judgment, 1960; C. F. D. Moule, ‘““‘The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments’’, in W. D. Davies
and D. Daube, The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, In Honour of Charles
Harold Dodd, 1956, 464-81; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956; M. Noth, The History of Israel,
1958, 97-108; W. Pesch, ‘“‘Judgement”’, EBT II 442-49; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I,
1962; II, 1965, see indexes; W. Robinson, ““The Judgment of God’, SJT 4, 1951, 136-47; C.
Roetzel, Judgment in the Community, 1972; and ‘‘The Judgment Form in Paul’s Letters”, JBL 88,
1969, 305-12; R. de Vaux, Ancient [srael, 1961, 143-63, 353 ff.; G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology,
1952.
(b). P. Althaus, Die letzten Dinge, 1956°; J. Blank, Krisis. Untersuchungen zur johanneischen
Christologie und Eschatologie, 1964; G. Bornkamm, “‘Der Lohngedanke im Neuen Testament”’,
Theologie und Verkiindigung, 1947, 7 ff.; and ‘“‘Das Gottesgericht in der Geschichte”, Studien zur
Antike und Christentum, 1959, 47 ff.; H. Braun, Gerichtsgedanke und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus,
1930; E. Dinkler, ‘‘Rechtsnahme und Rechtsverzicht. Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus”, Z7K
49, 1951, 167 ff., reprinted in Signum Crucis, 1967, 204 ff.; F. Horst, ‘““Recht und Religion im
Bereich des Alten Testaments”, EvTh 16, 1956, 49 ff.; L. Mattern, Das Verstandnis des Gerichtes
bei Paulus, 1966; F. Notscher, Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran-Texte, 1956; and
Gotteswege und Menschenwege in der Bibel und in Qumran, 1958; W. Richter, ‘“‘Zu den ‘Richtern
Israels’ ”’, ZAW 77, 1965, 40 ff.; SB IV, 2, 1119-1212; H. Schuster, ‘“‘Rechtfertigung und Gericht
bei Paulus”, Stat Crux Dum Volvitur Orbis, 1959, 57 ff.; P. Volz, Eschatologie der jtidischen
Gemeinde, 1934’, 89-97; R. Walker, ““Die Heiden und das Gericht. Zur Auslegung von Rom. 2,
12-16”, EvTh 20, 1960, 302 ff.; O. Weber, Grundlagen der Dogmatik, II, 1962, 718 ff.
371
King, Kingdom
| Baoileia Baothetc (basileus), ruler, king; Baotdeia (basileia),
kingship, kingly rule, kingdom; BagiAev@ (basileud), to
be king, rule; avufaciAev@ (symbasileud), share the rule; Bacideioc (basileios),
royal; BactAikdc (basilikos), royal, kingly; Bacidicaa (basilissa), queen.
CL 1. The noun basileus occurs as early as Linear B, and is originally a general
term for a ruler; later more specifically a king.
(a) In Mycenaean Gk. basileus does not mean sovereign of a state, but a subordi-
nate prince or leader; the king is here the anax, i.e. divine ruler. The title anax and
the ideas that went with it disappeared with time, and basileus took on the meaning
of king in this sense (cf. T. B. L. Webster, From Mycenae to Homer, 1958).
(b) In Homer basileus is used of an hereditary, legitimate ruler, whether his
sphere of influence be great or small. Thus Odysseus can be described as a basileus
in Ithaca. The power of the king, from Homer onwards, is traced back to Zeus,
and the king described as “‘nourished by Zeus [diotrephés]” (cf. Homer, //. 2, 196).
Hesiod extols the king’s wisdom and competence to judge, and makes him inspired
by the Muses (Theogonia 886).
(c) After monarchy had given place to the rule of an aristocracy, and then in
various Greek cities one of the nobles set himself up as monarch, a new term
came into being for those who ruled in this fashion, tyrannos, one who has gained
the rule by illegitimate means. Nothing derogatory is implied by this term about the
way the rule is exercised. Not until the “slaying of the tyrants” (514 B.c. in Athens),
and the subsequent glorification of those responsible, Harmodios and Aristogeiton,
does the word tyrannos take on a negative meaning, and the term basileus, which
has no longer any more than a marginal place in Greek political life, re-emerge as
the title of a just and legal ruler. Plato in particular took this view, with his strong
condemnation of the tyrant and his moral upgrading of the basileus by the require-
ment that kings should be philosophers and philosophers kings (Republic 5, 473d;
Politicus 292e; cf. Aristotle, Politics 3, 1284a, 13).
(d) The Hellenistic concept of divine kingship is not derived from Plato. The
development is adequately explained by the political traditions of the Macedonian
monarchy and of the divine kingship of the Achaemenidae, and the overshadowing
of both by the personality of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.c.). The special
names of the Diadochoi, e.g. “‘benefactor’, euergetés, serve in the process of
eliminating rivals, and are to be understood as divine attributes. One of the Dia-
dochoi, Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria (c. 215-163 B.c.), became as a result of
his attempt to force Hellenization on the Jews a symbol of man’s opposition to
372
KING
God (on the erection of an altar to Zeus in the temple at Jerusalem [Mk. 13:14]
—> Abomination of Desolation).
(e) The Hellenistic idea of divine kingship originating with Alexander the Great
was revived again in the Roman emperor cult. It was only by taking over the
Hellenistic concept of the incarnation of divinity in the emperor that Augustus
(63 B.Cc.-A.D. 14) was able to comprehend in his own person the imperium as a
single whole, a unification for which there was neither national nor cultural
precedent. The effect of the confession kyrios [ésous, used by the Christians in
proclaiming Jesus as the Lord, was to destroy this vital ideology of the Roman
imperium, and the reaction it called forth was the persecution of Christians during
the first three centuries (~ Confess). (On ruler worship in the Roman Empire see
H. Lietzmann, The Beginnings of the Christian Church, 19497, 163 ff.)
2. The abstract noun basileia is of later origin than basileus, and is attested first
in Hdt. 1, 11 (in the Ionic form basiléié).
(a) The original meaning of the term basileia is the fact of being king, the position
or power of the king, and it is best translated office of king, kingly rule (e.g.
Aristotle, Politics 3, 1285b, 20).
(b) Besides this meaning there is a second meaning which emphasizes the geo-
graphical aspect of basileia; for the status of a king is shown by the area over which
he reigns. basileia assumes therefore the meaning kingdom, signifying the state or
area over which a king reigns (P.Oxy 1257, 7).
3. The vb. basileud (Homer) means: (a) to be king, to reign (e.g. Homer, J/. 2,
203; Od. 2, 47); (b) inceptive: to become king, to begin to reign (Hdt. 2, 2). The vb.
symbasileud expresses the idea of ruling with (cf. Polyb., 30, 2, 4). The adjectives
basileios and basilikos (Hdt., Aesch.) both express that which appertains to a king:
royal. Finally the fem. term for king must be mentioned, basilissa, queen. This
superseded the Attic forms basilis and basileia, and is found in the comic poet
Alcaeus and in Xenophon, Oeconomicus 9, 15, and frequently in later writers (e.g.
Philo and Josephus).
oT In the LXX the words of this root are very frequent, mostly as translations of
Heb. derivatives of the root mdalak, to be king, to reign. In contrast to the NT
(see below NT introductory paragraph), the term basileus, which appears frequently
in almost all the books and especially in the historical writings, is far and away the
most common. basileia occurs comparatively rarely (400 times) and not until
Daniel does it begin to have a meaning of its own beside basileus. It is also import-
ant to observe that the words are used first and foremost for earthly kings and
their secular government, and only secondarily of Yahweh’s kingship. This means
that the concept of Yahweh’s kingly rule can only be presented in connection with
the Israelite monarchy.
1. (a) From the conquest onwards, all the peoples with whom Israel came in
contact had kings. Israel herself did not adopt monarchy as an institution until
relatively late. This is all the more surprising in view of the fact that the Edomites,
Moabites and Ammonites, who conquered their own territories during the same
period as Israel, went over to government by a national monarchy soon after their
settlement. The Israelites, on the other hand, continued for two centuries after the
conquest of Canaan to function as a sacred confederation of tribes with a central
373
KING
sanctuary. Israel’s initial hesitation to adopt the institution of monarchy is bound
up with the concept of the holy war, which Yahweh himself conducts on Israel’s
behalf (Exod. 14:14; Jos. 23:10; Jdg. 7:22; cf. G. von Rad, Der heilige Krieg im
alten Israel, 19654, 6 ff., 14 ff.). Yahweh himself is seen as commander-in-chief of
the Israelite army, and as the one to whom the land unconditionally belongs.
(b) Israel’s constant harassment by the occasional subjection to the Philistines
was the surface reason for the introduction of the monarchy. According to the
older tradition (1 Sam. 9:1-10:16; 11:1—-11, 14 f.), Yahweh himself took the initia-
tive in view of the political extremity of his people, and had Saul the Benjaminite
anointed king by Samuel (1 Sam. 9:16). Alongside this positive assessment of the
monarchy, there was from the very beginning a rejection of it on the grounds of the
theocratic lordship of Yahweh. This view flourished particularly in the northern
kingdom. Thus there 1s a line stretching from Gideon of Manasseh (“I will not
rule over you... Yahweh will rule over you” [Jdg. 8:23]), through Hosea the last
prophet of the northern kingdom with his anti-monarchical tendency (Hos. 3:4;
7:3; 13:10 f.), to the Deuteronomistic account of the setting up of the monarchy in
Israel (1 Sam. 8:1-22a; 10:17-27). Here the demand of the people, “Appoint for
us a king to govern us like all the nations,’ received the answer from Yahweh,
“They have rejected me from being king over them” (1 Sam. 8:5-7). The juxta-
position of the two accounts, one positive and the other critical, of the introduction
of the monarchy (1 Sam. 8-12), makes clear the problem which beset the Israelite
monarchy from the outset. On the one hand, it was seen as Yahweh’s gift; on the
other, as his rival.
(c) Of decisive significance for the Judean monarchy was the religious ratification
it received through Nathan’s prophetic promise to > David (2 Sam. 7:1-I1b, 16).
The house of David is here promised everlasting duration (verse 16). Because of
this Davidic — covenant, the right of David’s hereditary successors to the kingdom
of Judah was never called in question. The dynasty was assured of continuance
despite all the ups and downs which the throne underwent. By contrast the mon-
archy of the northern kingdom, after the non-renewal under Jeroboam I of the
union with Judah (1 Ki. 12:1 ff.), never achieved the stability of the Davidic dynasty.
Here the old ideal of charismatic leadership, as it had been known in Israel’s
formative period, lived on. According to it, only Yahweh’s call fitted anyone for the
office of ruler.
Another feature of the theology of kingship in Judah, in contrast to the Egyptian
concept of a king who 1s divine by nature, is the adoption of the ruler as the son of
Yahweh. This was celebrated at the festival of enthronement and hymned in the
royal Psalms (e.g. Ps. 2:7; 45:7; 110:1). However, the less the kings of Judah in
their historical reality measured up to the standards set forth in the theology of
kingship, the more strongly did the expectation of an eschatological messianic
king develop, who would finally fulfil the prophecy of Nathan and the associated
concepts of kingship (Amos 9:11-15; but cf. Gen. 49:8—12). Isaiah in particular, a
prophet who had close associations with the theology of kingship, prophesied of
a branch of David that would bring in a new era of righteousness and peace (Isa.
11:1-9; 9:2-7; cf. also the messianic prophecies of Mic. 5:2 ff.; Jer. 23:5 f.;
Ezek. 17:22 ff.; — Jesus Christ, art. Christos oT; — Son of God, art. hyios Dauid).
2. The kingship of Yahweh is an aspect of faith found neither in the wisdom
374
KING
literature, the oral teaching of many of the prophets, nor in a considerable number
of historical narratives. It is frequent, on the other hand, in the hymns of the
Psalter (the so-called enthronement-Psalms), later prophetic writings including
the prophecies to the nations in Jeremiah (e.g. Jer. 46:18; 48:15; 51:57), and in the
narrative parts of the book of Daniel. Thus it tends to feature in the later parts of
the OT. This suggests that the concept of Yahweh’s kingship was not a constitutive
element in the original faith of Israel (cf. A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, I, 19684, 348). This is not to say that Israel did not from the first
place herself under the rule of Yahweh. On the contrary, faith in the absolute
lordship of Yahweh within the tribal confederacy goes back to the days before the
formation of a political state (see above | (a)).
(a) The earliest example of the title king being used of Yahweh is in the 8th
century ““My eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts’’ (Isaiah 6:5). It is no
coincidence that the title of king for Yahweh appears in the course of a vision which
came to Isaiah in the central sanctuary at — Jerusalem. Texts discovered at
Ugarit (in Syria) have revealed that in the Syro-Canaanite world there existed the
idea of the “God most high” (cf. Gen. 14:18 f.) who bore the title of king (melek).
The use of melek as a title for Yahweh has as its background the Syro-Canaanite
world of ideas, and was probably originally drawn from the sacral traditions of the
_Jebusite city of Jerusalem and transferred to Yahweh there (Isa. 6:5). There is
evidence of the existence of the mdlek cult (AV Molech, Moloch) among the original
inhabitants of pre-Israelite Jerusalem (Lev. 18:21; 2 Ki. 23:10). Yahweh therefore
would not have been described as melek before the time of the monarchy.
The divine title melek brought with it even in the Syro-Canaanite setting, a
claim to universal authority which found expression particularly in lordship over the
pantheon of gods. This universal claim is also reflected in the OT passages which
talk about Yahweh the melek. Yahweh’s kingship has a cosmic dimension: he is
the creator of the world (cf. Pss. 24:1; 93:1; 95:3 ff.); “his kingdom rules over all
the earth” (Ps. 47:2); he is the king of the nations (cf. Jer. 10:7; Ps. 47:3; 99:2).
(b) In addition to this concept of Yahweh being king, we find the dynamic
concept of Yahweh becoming king. This finds expression especially in the enthrone-
ment-Psalms in the cry ““Yahweh has become King!” (Pss. 47:8; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1;
99:1). (Note: Eng. versions have ‘“‘The Lord reigns”’ for this Heb. perfect.)
The inseparability of the two concepts “Yahweh is king” and ‘‘Yahweh has
become king’’ becomes especially evident in the later chapters of Isa. Yahweh is
“King of Jacob” or “King of Israel’ (Isa. 41:21; 44:6). Put in context of announc-
ing the new exodus, a herald now brings to the city of Jerusalem the message:
“Your God reigns’ (Isa. 52:7). The enthronement-Psalms do not primarily
announce an eschatological event, but a present reality experienced in the cultic
ceremony. The proclamation of the reign of Yahweh as an eschatological event
is now associated with the historical act of the new exodus. It is not nature and the
cycle-of the seasons (as in Babylonia), but the historical actions of Yahweh which
form the basis of his “‘enthronement’’. (On the much-debated theory of an en-
thronement festival of Yahweh in Israel, cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, BKAT 15, I,
§ 6 XLII f.; Excursus on Ps. 24, pp. 201 ff.; — Might, art. thronos oT 4).
(c) In the Judaean messianic theology of kingship the lordship of Yahweh is
combined with the hoped-for lordship of the messiah. Thus it is the same prophet,
375
KING
Isaiah of Jerusalem, who was the first to use the royal title for Yahweh and who
almost always related it to the currently reigning son of David. Even the messianic
prince of the future is for Isaiah no autocrat, but one who is appointed (sar,
official, vizier) and receives his office from God (Isa. 9:7; 11:1 f.). The rule of the
future, messianic son of David is accordingly a delegated exercise of authority,
representing the kingly rule of Yahweh.
The anti-monarchical bias of the northern kingdom (1 Sam. 8:7) stands in
contrast to this, with a non-messianic eschatology (Hosea). This is also represented
by Deutero-Isaiah who proclaimed from exile the kingship of Yahweh (Isa. 41:21;
44:6) and his eschatological enthronement (Isa. 52:7). Finally, in Ezekiel we find
side by side the titles of king (Ezek. 37:24) and prince (Ezek. 37:24) for the mes-
sianic servant David.
3. The noun mal*’kiit is an early Heb. abstract noun with the meaning kingdom,
reign. The reference is to power rather than to locality.
(a) The term mal°kiit in the OT usually refers in a purely secular sense to political
kingdoms (cf. 1 Sam. 20:31; 1 Ki. 2:12; 1 Chr. 12:23; 2 Chr. 11:17; Jer. 49:34;
Dan. 9:1).
(b) Although the secular meaning of ma/°kiit is the most common one, there are
occasional references to God’s rule as his mal°kiit, kingship, which he is presently
exercising (Ps. 103:19; 145:11-13; Dan. 4:3). This is analogous to the use of
melek, king, as an epithet of Yahweh.
(c) In later texts Yahweh’s kingship is interpreted in an eschatological sense.
The recognition begins to emerge of a kingdom of Yahweh at the end of time which
breaks through all national barriers. One day Yahweh will rule over the whole
earth. His throne will be in Jerusalem, and all nations will make their pilgrimage
to Zion to worship him there (Isa. 24:23; Zech. 14:9; Obad. 21). A characteristic
of the eschatological expectation of the later prophets is that Yahweh’s mal*kit is
always presented as immanent (cf. G. von Rad, TDNT I 568 ff.).
(d) Finally, in Dan. 7, this immanent eschatology is elevated to a transcendent
level, in the concept of the kingdom of the ‘“‘son of man” (v. 13 f.) and the kingdom
of “‘the saints of the Most High” (v. 27). The son of man (— Son of God, art.
hyios tou anthropou) is an individual (v. 14) who represents the Most High (v. 27),
as the king of Judah represented the people. In other words, when power is com-
mitted to the son of man, it is at the same time being given to the saints of the Most
High. By these are meant the heavenly beings who surround God (M. Noth The
Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 215—28; cf. Ps. 89:5—7; Job 15:15;
Deut. 33:2; Zech. 14:5). The transfer of power to the son of man, representing the
saints of the Most High, takes place within the heavenly realm (v. 12: “‘with the
clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man’’), so that the earthly empires
symbolized by the four beasts are replaced by the transcendent rule of the saints
of the Most High represented by the son of man. In the idea that God has a definite
plan for the world (the four empires in succession), and in the dualism of the four
world empires seen as the era of the evil one as over against the kingdom of God
seen as transcendent, we have already the most important elements of apocalyptic.
4. (a) The expression kingdom of heaven (mal’kiit Samayim; Gk. basileia ton
ouranon) owes its origin to the endeavour of Rab. Judaism to find an alternative
for the divine name in the phrase mal*’kit YHWH (kingdom of Yahweh) by using
376
KING
either 5°kindh, glory (Gk. doxa) or samayim, heaven (Gk. ouranos). Kingdom of
heaven is therefore a term which implies the essential idea that ‘God rules as
King’. It is a Jewish expression which is purely theological in its reference.
Since the kingdom of heaven is not evident in this world, it is necessary to decide
for or against it by a decision of will. The expression “‘to take upon oneself the yoke
of the kingdom of Yahweh” means to confess allegiance to the one God as King
(cf. SB I 173 ff.). The opportunity to accept or reject the kingdom will, however,
come to an end when Yahweh reveals himself at the end of time. In the theology of
Rab. Judaism the kingdom of God is a purely eschatological concept (K. G. Kuhn
TDNT I 574).
(b) As happened earlier with the OT eschatology of the northern kingdom (see
above 2 (c)), there is a tension in Judaism between the expectation of the messiah,
as a nationalistic, Israelite king at the end of time, and the hope of the eschato-
logical revelation of the kingdom of God. In the last days the messiah will come,
ascend the throne of Israel, and subject to himself all the nations of the earth (cf.
SB IV 968 f.). Not until then will the hitherto hidden kingdom of heaven emerge
from the transcendent realm. But there is in Judaism no inner connection between
the coming of the national messianic king and the coming of the rule of God. This
is further confirmed by the fact that the people of Israel as such receives no mention
in statements concerning the kingdom of God. Membership of the nation can
no longer be a determining factor, when it is a personal decision before God that is
required. Thus proselytes can also take upon themselves the “yoke of the kingdom
of God’’ (SB I 176). It should be noted further that in Rab. literature the term
kingdom of heaven is comparatively rare and that it does not carry the same theo-
logical significance that it does in the preaching of Jesus. This helps to explain
why those Jews who thought along nationalistic lines in terms of a nationalistic
kingly messiah were bewildered by Jesus, while in the apocalyptic circles the ex-
pectation of the kingdom of God continued to live on. In the Qumran writings
there are occasional references to the kingdom of God, but the Essenes had no
expectation of its coming.
(c) The Apocryphal writings of the LXX in general follow the OT pattern of
thought about the kingdom of God. In some places, however, where there is no
Heb. equivalent, we may detect Hellenistic influence. Thus the LXX can identify
the basileia with the four cardinal virtues (4 Macc. 2:23), and in Wis. 6:20 we read,
“The desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom.” This shift to an ethical meaning, in
keeping with popular philosophy, is completed by Philo (cf. Migr.Abr. 97; Abr.
261; Sacr. 49; Som. 2, 244). The actual content of the basileia is the rule of the
sage, seen as the true king (see above cL | (c)). The result of this shift of meaning
was that the eschatological character of the term as used in the OT was inevitably
lost. “The basileia constitutes a chapter in his moral doctrine. The true king is the
wise man” (K. L. Schmidt, 7DNT I 576). Josephus does not speak of basileus and
basileia, but of hégemdén, governor, and hégemonia, direction, administration (cf.
A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott ?, 1910, 11 f.; for these terms in the NT
—> Caesar, art. hégemon).
NT In the NT basileia is used more frequently than basileus and basileud (cf. above
OT introductory paragraph). Taking the words from this root together, we find
377
KING
that they belong chiefly to the vocabulary of the Synoptic Gospels. In Matt. and
Lk.-Acts basileus, and to an even greater extent basileia, play a positively decisive
r6le. The two nouns are used only occasionally in Jn., the Pauline corpus, and the
other NT epistles, but they come to the fore again in Rev. The vb. basileud, on the
other hand, appears only occasionally in the Synoptic Gospels, though more often
in Rev. It has its maximum theological significance in Paul (Rom., 1 Cor.).
1. basileus in the NT. The NT follows closely the precedent set by the OT and
Judaism in giving to God and Christ alone the full right to the title king. Human
kings, by contrast, are generally regarded as of limited importance.
(a) The earthly kings referred to are frequently those who set themselves against
God and his Christ: Pharaoh (Acts 7:10; Heb. 11:23, 27); Herod the Great
(Matt. 2:1 ff.; Lk. 1:5); Herod Antipas (Matt. 14:8); Herod Agrippa I (Acts
12:1, 20); Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13 f. etc.); Aretas (2 Cor. 11:32); and the
Roman emperor (1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:13; Rev. 17:9 ff.). These rulers are called
‘kings of the earth” (Matt. 17:25; Acts 4:26; Rev. 1:5; 6:15); “‘kings of the Gentiles
(Lk. 22:25); or “kings of the whole world” (Rev. 16:14; cf. Ps. 2:2 and 89:27; cf.
TDNT I 576 f.).
Just as the OT is at variance with oriental views of divine kingship, so the NT
is opposed to Hellenistic and Roman ideas of this kind: the earthly king is not an
incarnation of the deity, since no one but God or the messiah can occupy such a
position. Thus in Rev., in sharp contrast to the presumptuous claims to divinity
of Domitian, only God is recognized as king of the nations basileus ton ethnon (Rev.
15:3 v./.), and only Christ as the king of kings, basileus basiledn (Rev. 19:16;
17:14). The OT attitude to the great kings is found again in the NT with regard
to the “kings of the east’? (Rev. 16:12): the supremacy of God is asserted by making
them a rod in his hand, only to destroy them at the last day if they do not submit
to him in obedience (Rev. 17:2 ff.; 18:3 ff.; 19:18 ff; 21:24).
(b) Only — David and — Melchizedek receive a positive assessment, by contrast
with the earthly kings mentioned otherwise in the NT: David, because as the king
chosen by God (2 Sam. 7) he is the forefather of Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 1:6; Acts
13:22); Melchizedek, because as the priest-king of Salem (Gen. 14:18) he is the
OT type of the high priesthood of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff.).
(c) Jesus “‘who was descended from David according to the flesh”? (Rom. 1:3;
Matt. 1:6) is described in the NT as the messianic King of the Jews (basileus ton
Ioudaion) or King of Israel (basileus Israé/) (—> Israel, art. [sraé/ NT). Son of David,
King of the Jews, King of Israel are messianic titles (> Son of God).
(i) The first thing we notice here is that these titles are used principally in the
section of the Gospels portraying the trial before Pilate (Mk. 15; Matt. 27; Lk. 23;
Jn. 18 f.), and here exclusively on the lips of the Jewish opponents of Jesus, or of
Pilate and his soldiers. basileus ton Ioudaion does not appear as a self-designation
of Jesus. Thus Jesus was accused by the throng of saying that he was “Christ a
king” (Lk. 23:2). Jesus was asked by Pilate, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Mk.
15:2 par. Matt. 27:11, Lk. 23:3). The people were confronted by Pilate with a
decision: ““Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” (Mk. 15:9
par. Matt. 27:17; cf. Lk. 23:17). And after the condemnation of Jesus, the soldiers
mocked him in the praetorium with the words, “‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ (Mk.
15:18 par. Matt. 27:29). On the cross the inscription of the charge read ““The
378
KING
King of the Jews’? (Mk. 15:26 par. Matt. 27:37, Lk. 23:38, Jn. 19:19). Like the
soldiers on guard (Lk. 23:37), the rulers of the people mocked as they passed by,
“Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may
see and believe” (Mk. 15:32 par. Matt. 27:42, Lk. 23:35).
(ii) If it is true, as the Roman inscription on the cross makes probable, that Jesus
was condemned on a charge of claiming to be the messianic king of Israel, and if
this claim is never found on the lips of Jesus, we may suppose that the basis of the
charge is to be seen and found largely in the way Jesus behaved. (O. Cullmann
regards the inscription as “almost irrefutable proof that Jesus in some way
made himself the subject of his preaching on the Kingdom of God soon to come”’
[Salvation in History, 1967, 109; cf. The State in the New Testament, 1957, 8-49].)
At any rate it is unlikely that the Jewish leaders acted out of pure malice in accusing
Jesus of being a pretender to the throne, or that Pilate had no other intention in
ordering the inscription on the cross than to make mock of Jewish messianism.
(On the crucifixion of Jesus — Cross, art. stauros NT 1; on the trial of Jesus see
D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Histori-
ography from 1770 to the Present Day, 1971.) Rather we should note that Jesus
himself saw his miracles of healing, his casting out of demons, and his preaching
of the gospel to the poor as the fulfilment of Isaianic prophecies (Isa. 29:18 f.;
35:5 f.; 61:1 f.), and accordingly as messianic events (Matt. 11 :2-6; Lk. 4:16—27).
Moreover, his two principal actions during the last days at Jerusalem—the entry
into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:1-9; Mk. 11:1-10; Lk. 19:28-38; Jn. 12:12-19) and the
cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12 f.; Mk. 11:15-19; Lk. 19:47 f.)\—make it clear
that Jesus knew himself to be the fulfiller of messianic prophecies (cf. Isa. 62:11;
Zech. 9:9; 2 Ki. 9:13; Ps. 118:26; and Exod. 30:13; Lev. 1:14; Isa. 56:7; Jer.
7:11 for oT allusions in these narratives).
(iii) It is also demonstrable that Jesus was confronted during his ministry with
the question whether he was the messiah, when for instance in connection with the
feeding of the five thousand the people wanted ‘“‘to make him king” (Jn. 6:15).
Similarly, in the “‘old reliable tradition” (W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment,
19612, 111) John the Baptist’s question (Matt. 11:3 par. Lk. 7:19 f.) used a term
for the messiah which was not at all common among the Jews, “the coming one
[ho erchomenos|’ (—> Come, art. erchomai NT 3), in asking whether Jesus was he.
Jesus’ answer here is characteristic, in that he did not respond to the question
directly with an open declaration of his messiahship. Instead he pointed to the ful-
filment of Isaianic prophecies in veiled language that challenged the hearer to make
up his mind (Matt. 11:5 par. Lk. 7:22). In view of the lowliness of Jesus the messiah,
it is the visible messianic actions which retain more significance for the outsider.
The fact that Jesus saw himself to be the king of the Jews and messiah of his people,
and yet concealed it in this way, is his “‘messianic secret’’ (on the question of Jesus’
messianic consciousness —> Jesus Christ, art. Christos NT 5 and the literature under
both Jésous and Christos; — also Secret).
The same point is brought out by the short answer of Jesus, recorded by all
the evangelists, to Pilate’s question, whether he is the King of the Jews: “You say
so [sy legeis]” (Matt. 27:2; Mk. 15:2; Lk. 23:3). Only once did Jesus openly reveal
this messianic secret, and that is in the trial before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:57-75;
Mk. 14:53-72; Lk. 22:54-71). To the question of the high priest, ““Are you the
379
KING
Christ?’ he replied unequivocally with the statement, “‘I am; and you will see the
Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of
heaven” (Mk. 14:62; cf. Matt. 26:64; Lk. 22:69; on the Son of man, — Son of
God, art. hyios tou anthropou NT).
(iv) In the earliest Christian writings outside the Synoptic tradition and John’s
Gospel, i.e. in Acts and the writings of Paul, there is no mention of “‘King of Israel”’
or “‘King of the Jews’’. Nevertheless, it can be seen from a passage like Acts 17:7
that Christians in Thessalonica were being denounced by the Jews for confessing
allegiance to Jesus as another king (basilea heteron). There is a certain irony in the
way the Jews accused Christians of opposing the quasi-divine claims of the Roman
emperor. However, it is basically true to say that with the application of the mes-
sianic title Christ to Jesus, the proclamation of Jesus as king of Israel faded
eventually into the background, giving way to achristological, soteriological kerygma
which focussed on the — Cross and — resurrection of Jesus (cf. Rom. 4:25; 1
Cor. 15:3 f.). (On the formation of the kerygma see C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic
Preaching and its Developments, 1936; ““The Framework of the Gospel Narrative’,
New Testament Studies, 1953, 1-11; cf. the not altogether convincing critique by
D. E. Nineham, ““The Order of Events in St. Mark’s Gospel — an Examination of
Dr. Dodd’s Hypothesis” in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in
Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, 1955, 223-40; — Proclamation.).
(d) In his Institutes of the Christian Religion 2, 15 Calvin expounded the three
offices of Christ as — prophet, — priest and king, showing how these offices were
anticipated by the corresponding figures in the OT and how they are appropriated
by believers. The thought of the people of God sharing in kingship goes back to the
OT. Exod. 19:6 contains the promise based on the — covenant: ‘‘And you shall
be to me a kingdom of priests [basileia hierateuma] and a holy nation” (cf. Isa.
61:6). This thought is applied to Christian believers in Rev. 1:6 and 5:10 (where
basileia is used in both cases). In the former passage it refers to believers in the
present time; in the latter it is part of the “new song” of the saints before the >
lamb.
The same thought occurs in | Pet. 2:9: “But you are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood [basileion hierateuma], a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may
declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his mar-
vellous light’” (RSV). The word translated here as “royal’’, basileion, can be taken
either as a neut. adj. agreeing with hierateuma (as in RSV) or as a noun, 1.e. group
of kings (cf. E. Best, J Peter, 1971, 107f.). Although there is no actual occurrence
of the word in this sense, Best holds that its form indicates that such a meaning Is
possible. Moreover, it accords with the Targumic interpretation of Exod. 19:6
and the Christian tradition of Rev. 5:10, where the glorified saints “‘shall reign
[basileusousin] on earth” (cf. Rev. 1:6).
The vb. basileud, reign, is used of the reign of believers in Rom. 5:17 (where it is
contrasted with the reign of death, cf. 5:14, 17, 21; cf. also the reign of sin, Rom.
6:12); 1 Cor. 4:8 (here ironically of the lordly behaviour of the Corinthians which,
in fact, falls short of true reigning); and Rev. 20:4, 6; 20:5 (of the reign of the
saints on earth and in glory). For the idea of reigning expressed in other terms see
Eph. 2:6; 2 Tim. 2:12; Jas. 2:5 (cf. the third Beatitude “Blessed are the meek, for
they shall inherit the earth, Matt. 5:5;— Inheritance, art. k/éro6d). For other
380
KING
instances of basileud see Matt. 2:22; Lk. 1:33; 9:14; 1 Cor. 15:25; 1 Tim. 6:15;
Rev. 11:15, 17; 19:6. See further J. H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy, Supplements
to NovT 12, 1966; and E. Best, “‘I Peter 2:4—10, A Reconsideration’’, NovT 11, 1969,
270-93.
(e) basilissa, queen, occurs only 4 times in the NT. Matt. and Lk. both record
the saying about the queen of the South in the context of the sign of — Jonah.
“The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with this generation and con-
demn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon,
and behold, something greater than Solomon is here’”’ (Matt. 12:42 par. Lk. 11:31;
cf. 1 Ki. 10:1-10; 2 Chron. 9:1-12; — Solomon). Although Sheba is today identi-
fied with Arabia, Josephus connected the Queen of Sheba with Ethiopia (Ant. 2, 10,
2; 8, 6, 5f.). Later Arabic legend made her Solomon’s wife, and the Ethiopian
royal line claims descent from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. In the NT she
is an example to the Jews of the lengths to which a non-Jew might go in seeking
wisdom. All the more reason have the Jews themselves cause to leave their ways,
for paradoxically there is in Jesus the Galilean preacher “‘something greater than
Solomon.” Acts 8:27 might be regarded as an illustration of a similar response of a
non-Jew. The Ethiopian — eunuch is described there as “‘a minister of Candace
the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, [who] had come to
Jerusalem to worship.’ He too was a seeker. The episode is all the more pointed in
the light of the persecution by the Jews which has just scattered the Jerusalem church
(Acts 8:1), the eunuch’s study of scripture (Isa. 53:7 f.; Acts 8:32 f.), and the fact
that he was a eunuch. By contrast Babylon who plays the queen is judged (Rev.
18:7).
2. The use of basileia in the NT. (a) General. For the earthly, human king there is
a corresponding earthly, human kingdom. In this sense basileia means, according
to context, the office of king (e.g. Lk. 19:12, 15; Rev. 17:12) and also the area
governed, domain (e.g. Matt. 4:8 par. Lk. 4:5; Mk. 6:23; Rev. 16:10). In almost
all these passages the earthly kingdoms stand in contrast — though this is often
unexpressed — to the basileia tou theou, kingdom of God, since they are subject to
“the god of this world’’, the diabolos, devil, — Satan (Matt. 4:8). In Matt. 12:26
there is even explicit mention of the basileia of the devil. This is particularly true
with regard to the Roman Empire, described in Rev. expressly as the beast (Rev.
13:1; — Animal, art. thérion).
(b) Kingdom of God. hé basileia tou theou is a term of central importance only
within the Synoptic tradition. The form of the expression varies: Mk. and Lk.
speak of the kingdom of God, while Matt. has kingdom of heaven and kingdom of
the Father. Evidence that Mk. and LK. preserve in basileia tou theou the older form
used by Jesus himself is provided by two observations. First, both the sayings-
source and Mk. have this formula in the places where Matt. speaks of the basileia
ton ouranon, kingdom of heaven (Mk. 1:15; Matt. 4:17; Lk. 6:20 par. Matt. 5:3).
Secondly and more important, Matt. itself contains four instances of the older
term kingdom of God (12:28; 19:34; 21:31; 21:43). Jesus probably, therefore,
spoke exclusively of the basileia tou theou. This is not to say that he never used a
circumlocution for the divine name. It is exemplified by Matt. 5:4, where the
passive parakléthésontai, ‘‘they shall be comforted’’, means that God will comfort
them; and Lk. 16:9, where the plur. “‘they”’ i.e. the angels, will receive you into the
381
KING
eternal habitations means that God will receive you (cf. also Lk. 12:20; 23:31).
({Ed.] The “‘they” in Lk. 16:9 might, however, also be taken to refer to those
benefited by the use of mammon.) Where basileia is used alone, without the
addition of tou theou, it is qualified by its context: tén hetoimasmenén hymin
basileian, ‘‘the kingdom prepared for you”’ (Matt. 25:34; cf. 6:10); God will throw
the sons of the kingdom into the outer darkness (Matt. 8:12; cf. Lk. 12:32;
22:29).
(c) The Kingdom of God to come in the future. In order to understand Jesus’
proclamation of the Kingdom of God, it is best, in accordance with the apocalyptic,
eschatological character of that proclamation, to start with those passages which
deal with the coming of the Kingdom of God in the near future. Mk. 1:15 records
the theme of Jesus’ preaching in a pregnant sentence: ‘““The kingdom of God has
come near [éngiken hé basileia tou theou]” (cf. Matt. 3:2; 5:17). The same theme is
found in other places: ‘““The kingdom of God is near [engys estin]” (Lk. 21:31; —
Goal, art. engys); it “is coming [erchetai]’? (Lk. 17:20; — Come, art. erchomai,
NT 3). Thus Jesus did not preach that there was a kingdom of God to which one
must confess allegiance (cf. Rab. Judaism, see above oT 4 (a)), but that the rule of
God is coming.
Just as when the fig-tree puts out leaves summer is known to be near, so the
events of the present guarantee that God’s rule will soon break in on the world
(Matt. 24:32 f.; Mk. 13:28 f.; Lk. 21:29 ff. ; + Fruit, art. syké). It is to this sudden,
unexpected irruption of the kingdom of God that Jesus’ parables of the Parousia
point: the sudden coming of the flood (Matt. 24:37 ff.; Lk. 17:26 ff.; — Noah),
the unexpected entrance of the burglar (Matt. 24:43 f.; Lk. 12:39 f.), the surprise
of the doorkeeper and the servant at the homecoming of their master (Matt.
24:45 ff.; cf. Lk. 12:42-6), the sudden arrival of the bridegroom (Matt. 25:1—13).
All these are pictures of the sudden irruption of the catastrophe, of the eschatolog-
ical crisis which is impending a short time ahead: “Truly, there are some standing
here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with
power” (Mk. 9:1; cf. Matt. 16:28; Lk. 9:27).
For Jesus the advent of the kingdom was so imminent that he vowed not to “drink
of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Lk. 22:18; cf. Mk. 14:25).
The Parousia (—> Present) of the Son of man will take place even before the disciples
have finished proclaiming the kingdom of God in Israel (Matt. 10:23). From these
references it may be concluded that Jesus proclaimed the imminent advent of the
kingdom of God within the lifetime of his hearers’ generation (Mk. 9:1; 13:30).
(On the interpretation of this -- Generation, art. genea NT.; — Present).
(d) The Kingdom of God in the present. Although for Jesus the realization of
God’s rule is still in the future, its urgent proximity already casts its shadow over the
present: “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of
God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28; cf. Lk. 11:20). The casting out of — de-
mons reveals that the devil has been bound by one stronger than he (Matt. 12:29;
Mk. 3:27; Lk. 11:21). The disarming of — Satan, an event which the Jews expected
in the end-time (SB I 167 f.), has taken place (Lk. 10:18); in the works of Jesus the
kingdom of God is already a present reality.
To the Pharisees’ question, ““When is the kingdom of God coming?’’, Jesus can
therefore answer, ““The kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Lk. 17:20 f.; not
382
KING
as AV “is within you’’). (On the prep. entos used here see Arndt, 268 f. and the
literature there referred to.) Because the kingdom is already present, the friends of
the bridegroom cannot fast (Mk. 2:19; cf. Matt. 9:15; Lk. 5:34); and it is the
Father’s good pleasure, eudokésen (aorist), to give Jesus’ disciples (the “‘little
flock’’) the kingdom (Lk. 12:32). With the appearance of John the Baptist, accord-
ing to an early logion, the era of the old revelation of God came to an end, and at
the same time the newera began. The kingdom of God, already present, is ‘‘violently
assaulted [biazetai]’ (Matt. 11:12 f.; cf. Lk. 16:16). ““The allusion may be to the
opposition of Satan and evil spirits to the Kingdom, or to the violence of Herod
Antipas to John; but a more likely explanation is that the reference is either to
Zealots who try to bring in the Kingdom by employing force against the Romans
or to Jewish antagonists of Jesus who continue to persecute Christians” (D. Hill,
The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 200).
(e) The Kingdom of God and the person of Jesus: an eschatology in process of
realization. In comparing the eschatology of Jesus with that of Judaism, it is not
sufficient to characterize the former as the ultimate extreme of imminent expecta-
tion. Of far more importance is Jesus’ claim that the verdict to be passed on men in
the final judgment is already determined by the attitude they adopt to himself in the
present age. “Every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge
~ before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32; cf. Lk. 12:8). He who hears the
words of Jesus and does them will survive the eschatological crisis. The unrepentant
cities, on the other hand, will be condemned, because in spite of the ‘‘mighty works” |
done inthem by Jesus (Matt. 11:21 ff.; cf. Lk. 10:13 ff.), they have not repented. Jesus
himself will appear as the eschatological judge (Matt. 25:31). He will disown those
who merely say “Lord, Lord” (Matt. 7:23; cf. Lk. 13:27), and plead before the
Father the cause of those who have confessed him (Matt. 10:32; cf. Lk. 12:8).
A man’s final destiny is decided by the attitude he adopts to Jesus’ word and action
(Matt. 7:24-27; cf. Lk. 6:47 ff.), in other words by his attitude to Jesus himself.
For this present age, marked as it is by the activity and preaching of Jesus, bears a
special relation to the coming day of — judgment. The new and distinctive factor,
compared with the Rab. view of the kingdom of God, is not simply that it is
coming, but that it is inextricably bound up with the person of Jesus. As W. G.
Kiimmel puts it, “It is the person of Jesus whose activities provoke the presence of
the eschatological consummation and who therefore stands at the centre of his
eschatological message’’ (op. cit., 108). The future rule of God has already in the
person of Jesus become a reality in word and deed. The coming, imminent king-
dom of God is already present in him. The interpretation of this teaching has led to
radically divergent theses in the course of theological discussion. (For a more detailed
survey of eschatological interpretation — Present: The Parousia and Eschatology in
the NT.)
The school of Ritschl regarded the kingdom of God in the present as an ethical
attitude which produces a moral society. Ritschl discarded apocalyptic, eschato-
logical expectation as an outdated relic of Judaism. Johannes Weiss and Albert
Schweitzer took the opposing view known as “consistent eschatology” or “thorough-
going eschatology’’. They rightly pointed out that Jesus himself linked his message
with Jewish apocalyptic by making its central theme the announcement that the
end of the world was impending (A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus,
383
KING
(1910) 19548, see especially ch. 19 on “‘Thoroughgoing Scepticism and Thorough-
going Eschatology’, 328-95). According to Schweitzer, the distinctively new ele-
ment in the preaching of Jesus, as compared with apocalyptic, is the nearness of the
world catastrophe.
In contrast to this solution offered by “‘consistent eschatology”, a large propor-
tion of scholars in the English-speaking world have, under the influence of C. H.
Dodd, completely eliminated ‘‘futurist eschatology” from the proclamation, seeing
it as a product of re-Judaizing within the Christian community, and speak of a
“realized eschatology” in Jesus’ preaching. In view of the presumed Aramaic
original Dodd translates Mk. 1:15 as “The kingdom of God has come’”’ (The
Parables of the Kingdom, 1935, 44). He has thus reinstated an important element in
Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God, as against the views of A. Schweitzer,
though he too has over-emphasized one side. Dodd subsequently modified his way
of describing his understanding of NT eschatology. He came to speak of “an
eschatology that is in process of realization’’, a view which comes close to that of
J. Jeremias (The Parables of Jesus, 1963, 230; cf. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation
of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 447).
Rudolf Bultmann is in basic agreement with Schweitzer’s “‘consistent escha-
tology”. ““There can be no doubt that Jesus like his contemporaries expected a
tremendous eschatological drama’”’ (Jesus and the Word, 1935, 38). However,
Bultmann attempts by means of his existential interpretation to distill from the
mythical, apocalyptic future hope of Jesus the real meaning in existential terms.
For him the expectation of the end of the world as a future event in time is an
expression of the conviction that it is in the present moment that man is faced with
a decision. Thus “every hour is the last hour” (op. cit., 52; cf. History and Escha-
tology, [1957] 1962, 154f.). The true meaning of the eschatological preaching of
Jesus concerning the impending kingdom of God lies, according to Bultmann, in the
assertion that man is faced with a decision. ‘“The future Kingdom of God, then, is
not something which is to come in the course of time, so that to advance its coming
one can do something in particular, perhaps through penitential prayers and good
works, which become superfluous in the moment of its coming. Rather, the King-
dom of God is a power which, although it is entirely future, wholly determines the
present” (op. cit., 51).
Against this view it must be maintained that it is not the purpose of Jesus’
proclamation of the kingdom of God simply to call men to repentance and face
them with a decision. At the centre of Jesus’ message is the proclamation of the
urgent proximity of God’s kingdom, the announcement that God is about to
inaugurate his world-wide reign. Repentance and decision are consequences, but not
the actual theme of Jesus’ proclamation of the impending kingdom (cf. Matt. 3:2;
4:17). The fact that Jesus averted a question which sought an apocalyptic timetable
(Lk. 17:20 f.) must not be interpreted as an indication that the announcement of
the kingdom of God is concentrated in the existential meaning.
Jesus, therefore, preached the kingdom of God neither solely as a present reality
nor exclusively as a future event. Rather, he was aware that the future rule of God
was present in his actions and in his person. He spoke, therefore, of the future
kingdom, which would suddenly dawn, as already realizing itself in the present.
Thus the nature of Jesus’ eschatology is probably best described by the expression
384
ce
KING
‘‘an eschatology in process of realization’ (E. Haenchen quoted by J. Jeremias,
op. cit., 230). For the connection between the proclamation of the kingdom of
God and the Son of man sayings, — Son of God, art. hyios tou anthropou.
3. The Kingdom of God in the preaching of Jesus. (a) As depicted in the preaching
of Jesus, the kingdom of God may be characterized as being ‘‘opposed to every-
thing present and earthly, to everything here and now. It is thus absolutely miracu-
lous” (K. L. Schmidt, TDNT I 584). Man can, therefore, neither hasten the coming
of the kingdom of God by doing battle with God’s enemies (as the Zealots hoped),
nor force it to appear by scrupulous observation of the law (as the Pharisees hoped).
He can only await its coming in patience and confidence, as in the parables of the
mustard seed (Matt. 13:31 f.; Mk. 4:30 ff.), the leaven (Matt. 13:33), and the seed
growing secretly (Mk. 4:26-29).
(b) This kingdom is coming in the form of a cosmic catastrophe (Lk. 17:26;
Mk. 13:26; 14:62), ushered in by the appearance of the — Son of man. Jesus
thus aligned himself, not with the concept of an earthly, nationalistic messiah, but
with the apocalyptic tradition in Judaism with its expectation of the Son of man.
At the same time he avoided describing events in detail, although he clearly used
apocalyptic imagery (e.g. the heavenly feast in the kingdom of God, Mk. 14:25;
Matt. 8:11). Also connected with this toning down of apocalyptic ideas is Jesus’
rejection of all attempts to discern signs of the end: ““The kingdom of God is not
coming with signs to be observed”’ (Lk. 17:20).
(c) Although Jesus shared with apocalyptic writers a cosmic, universal type of
eschatology, in contrast to the political and nationalistic concept of the messiah,
he nonetheless upheld the OT doctrine of election (Matt. 10:6) with the associated
belief that it is the will of Yahweh to reach the whole world through the nation of
—> Israel. This is not to say that Israel has a special claim on God’s favour. Indeed,
Israel is in danger of being put to shame by the heathen on the day of judgment
(Matt. 12:42 par. Lk. 11:31). The kingdom will be taken from Israel and given
to the Gentiles (Matt. 21:43). God will cast the sons of the kingdom (Israel) into
outer darkness (Matt. 8:12; cf. Lk. 13:28). But Jesus promised the Twelve (—
Apostle), as the representatives of the eschatological people of God, the office of
judges and rulers in the future kingdom of God (Matt. 19:28; Lk. 22:28 ff.; cf.
Mk. 10:35-45).
(d) The facts that the kingdom is the gift of God (Lk. 12:32) and that it is
appointed to men (diatithémi) by — covenant (Lk. 22:29) have their counterparts
in the teaching that a person can only receive it like a child (Mk. 10:15 par. Lk.
18:17; cf. Matt. 18:3; Jn. 3:3) and that it is something for which one must wait (Mk.
15:43 par. Lk. 23:51). Particularly frequent is the metaphor of entering (eiserches-
thai) the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 19:23 f.; 23:13; Jn. 3:5). Entry
into the kingdom in the fullest sense lies in the future (Matt. 25:34; Mk. 9:43 ff.).
But the presence of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus faces the individual
with a clear-cut decision. The Yes or No nature of this situation is illustrated by the
hyperbole of Jesus: “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it
away; it is better to lose one of your members than let your whole body go into
hell’ (Matt. 5:30; cf. 18:8 f.; Mk. 9:43-48). Some have even made themselves —
eunuchs for the kingdom’s sake (Matt. 19:12). ““No one who puts his hand to the
plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:62). The decision is
385
KING
not a result of mere enthusiasm; it is to be made after careful previous consideration
(Lk. 14:28-32) and in obedience to Jesus’ word (Matt. 7:24-27). But when it is
made, it involves a readiness for sacrifice which may mean self-denial to the point
of being hated by one’s own family (Matt. 10:17 ff., 37). Yet the decision is not
born of a rigid fanaticism, but against a background of overwhelming joy at the
greatness of God’s gift (cf. the parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl of
great price, Matt. 13:44—46).
(ec) The kingdom of God is utterly transcendent and supernatural: it comes
from above, from God alone. When God’s kingdom comes, the hungry will be
filled and the sad will be comforted (cf. the Beatitudes, Matt. 5:3-10; Lk. 6:20 ff.).
It demands that men should love their enemies (Matt. 5:38-42; Lk. 6:27 f., 32-36),
and they will be as free from care as the birds of the air and the lilies of the field
(Matt. 6:25-33; Lk. 12:22-31). Here again it is Jesus himself, in whom alone the
future kingdom of God is present, in whose words and deeds that kingdom has
already appeared. It has come already, in that Jesus seeks out the company of
tax-collectors and sinners, offering them fellowship at table and so promising them
forgiveness of their sins. As the king invites to his feast the beggars and homeless
(Matt. 22:1-10), as the father’s love receives back again the prodigal son (Lk.
15:11-32), as the shepherd goes out after the lost sheep (Lk. 15:4-7), as the woman
searches for the lost coin (Lk. 15:8-10), as the master out of the goodness of his
heart pays the labourers hired at the last hour the full day’s pay (Matt. 20:1-15),
so Jesus goes to the poor to give them the promise of forgiveness, “‘for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3). Only sinners, who know what it is like to
have a great burden of — guilt (Lk. 7:41-43), can appreciate the remission of sins
through the goodness of God. For ‘‘those who are well have no need of a physician,
but those who are sick” (Mk. 2:17; cf. Matt. 9:12; Lk. 5:31).
The distinctive feature of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God is not
therefore that he brought a new doctrine of the kingdom, or that he revolutionized
people’s apocalyptic and eschatological expectations, but that he made the kingdom
of God inseparable from his own person. The new thing about Jesus’s preaching of
the kingdom is “‘He himself, simply his person’’ (J. Schniewind).
4. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Christ outside the preaching of Jesus.
(a) The Kingdom of Christ. Jesus himself spoke only of the basileia tou theou, the
kingdom of God, which he tied up inextricably with his own person. Only in this
sense did he declare it to be already present. After the resurrection the church,
convinced that he had been exalted to the status of + Lord (kyrios, Phil. 2:9-11;
Acts 2:36), maintained Jesus’ christological emphasis in the preaching of the
kingdom, and accordingly went on to speak of the basileia of Christ. They thus
preserved the christological interpretation which Jesus had given to the kingdom
of God, i.e. the inseparable connection between Jesus and the kingdom: only in
himself is the kingdom of God present.
Where we read of the basileia of Christ we are dealing with the language of the
early church. This is shown not only by the fact that the “‘conception of the King-
dom of Christ is foreign to the oldest stratum of tradition’’ (J. Jeremias, op. cit.,
82), but also by the observation that the majority of texts which speak of the
basileia of Christ may be recognized as redactional adaptations of an older original.
Mk. 9:1 is older than Matt. 16:28; and Mk. 10:37 is older than Matt. 20:21.
386
KING
basileia tou hyiou tou anthrdpou in Matt. 13:41 is an expression peculiar to Matt.
and is found otherwise only at Matt. 16:28. The subordinate clause “that you
may eat and drink in my kingdom” in Lk. 22:30 is lacking in the Matthaean
parallel, Matt. 19:28.
This redaction of older versions is a legitimate development. Thus according to
Jn. 18:36, Jesus says: ‘““My kingdom is not of this world.” Likewise 2 Tim. 4:18
speaks of the confidence of being delivered from every kind of evil and of being
‘“‘saved for his heavenly kingdom [eis tén basileian autou epouranion]’” (cf. 2 Tim.
4:1; 2 Pet. 1:11). The inseparable connection between the person of Jesus and the
presence of God’s kingdom is expressed most clearly of all when Jesus Christ
himself becomes an equivalent for ““kingdom of God’’, as is shown by the following
comparisons. Whereas Joseph of Arimathea was waiting for “‘the kingdom of God”
(Mk. 15:43), believers are awaiting “their Lord” (Phil. 3:20). Whereas Jesus’
message may be summed up as “The kingdom of God is at hand [éngiken hé
basileia tou theou]”’ (Mk. 1:15), James says, ““The coming of the Lord is at hand [hé
parousia tou kyriou éngiken]” (Jas. 5:8). The disciple forsakes his family for Jesus’
sake (heneken emou, Mk. 10:29) or for the sake of the kingdom of God (heneken
tés basileias tou theou, Lk. 18:29). This present — generation is to see the coming
of ‘‘the kingdom of God” (Mk. 9:1), or of “‘the Son of man coming in his kingdom”
(Matt. 16:28; cf. also Lk. 21:31 and Mk. 13:29). In Samaria Philip preached
‘“‘sood news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ’ (Acts 8:12;
cf. 28:31).
The phrase “‘basileia of Christ” and the equation of “kingdom of God” with
Jesus Christ are thus seen to be the result of the change-over from an implicit to an
explicit christology. They make it clear that Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of
God was in no way displaced in the early church by the proclamation of Jesus
Christ. The post-resurrection christology, in which Jesus Christ is the centre of the
kerygma, is rather the outcome of the realization that the kingdom of God is
present only in the person of Jesus Christ, so that one can only properly speak of the
kingdom of God by speaking of Jesus Christ. Since the kingdom is bound up with
the person of Jesus, the good news which Jesus preached of the dawning of God’s
kingdom becomes, after Easter, the — gospel of Jesus Christ and the proclamation
of his kingdom.
(b) Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God and the kerygma outside the
synoptic tradition. The kingdom of God, which is the central concept in the
preaching of Jesus, has only a peripheral place outside the Synoptic Gospels.
In its place we find the christological kerygma of the — cross and -—> resurrection
of Jesus, the expectation of the Parousia and the general resurrection of the dead,
and the use of terms such as — life (zdé, in Jn.) and — righteousness (dikaiosyné,
in Paul). Is there a logical sequence from Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom to the
christological kerygma and the Pauline doctrine of justification ?
At this point a survey of the synonyms used in the synoptic tradition for the
term basileia tou theou is illuminating. Matt. 6:33 says that men are to seek the
basileia of God and his dikaiosyné; in the par. Mk. 9:42-48 we find instead next
to one another the expressions eisel/thein eis ten zoén, to enter life (Mk. 9:43, 46;
cf. Matt. 7:13) and eiselthein eis tén basileian tou theou, to enter the kingdom of
God (Mk. 9:47). Following the question of the rich young man, ‘‘What must I do
387
KING
to inherit eternal life [zdén aidnion]|?” (Mk. 10:17), Jesus remarks in conversation
with his disciples ““How hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the
kingdom of God [tén basileian tou theou|!’’ The phrase “‘to inherit eternal life”’
(Mk. 10:17) has a counterpart in “‘to inherit the kingdom prepared for you [by
God] (Matt. 25:34). Paul says at Rom. 15:17: “the kingdom of God... is
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit [dikaiosyné kai eiréné kai chara
en pneumati hagid].”” Likewise in Rev. 12:10 we find hé sdtéria (salvation), hé
dynamis (power) and hé basileia tou theou linked together. In place of the request
for seats “in your glory [en té doxé sou|” (Mk. 10:37) the par. Matt. 20:21 has a
request for seats “in your kingdom [en té basileia sou]. Lk. 21:31 refers to the
nearness of God’s kingdom, whereas a few verses earlier Jesus declares, ‘“‘Raise
your heads, because your redemption [apolytrdsis] is drawing near’”’ (Lk. 21:28).
The Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-10; cf. Lk. 6:20 ff.) which promise God’s salvation
to the poor, the parables of the Kingdom which testify to God’s mercy towards
sinners (Matt. 22:1-10; Lk. 15:11-32; 15:4-7, 8-10), and finally the synonyms
for kingdom of God to be found within the synoptic tradition itself (— Righteous-
ness, —> Life, - Redemption, — Glory), all go to demonstrate that the future
kingdom of God, already present in the person of Jesus, is God’s saving activity
towards the individual. This saving activity of God, which is tied to Jesus and
mediated by him alone, is likewise at the centre of the kerygma outside the synoptic
tradition. Thus John speaks of eternal life (zoé aidnios, Jn. 3:15, 36 etc.), referring
to the goal of salvation, while Paul speaks of the righteousness, life or redemption
which is given in Christ. In the writings of Paul and John these terms are to be
understood with strict reference to christology (cf. “I am the resurrection and the
life’? [Jn. 11:25; cf. 3:15]; and the Pauline ‘“‘in Christ’’, especially in Rom. 6).
When in Rom. 4:5 Paul declares that the righteousness of God consists in “‘justi-
fying the ungodly’, he is taking up the central concern of Jesus’ preaching of the
kingdom, namely the promise of salvation to the poor and the sinners. The futurist
eschatology in the preaching of Jesus is likewise retained in the expectation of his
Parousia and the general resurrection of the dead. Pauline theology which is a
development of christology contains, like the preaching of Jesus, both a present and
a future element, since the crucified and risen one is also the one who is to come.
By tying salvation to the person of Jesus and by developing christology along the
lines of soteriology, pneumatology and eschatology, Paul has maintained a consistent
and legitimate extension of Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God, although he
has adapted this to the post-resurrection situation as regards the cross and
resurrection.
(c) Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Christ. Evidence that the kingdom of
Jesus Christ is in the NT view the same as the kingdom of God is also to be seen
in the fact that in parts of the NT outside the synoptic tradition both expressions
are found together, sometimes God being named first, and sometimes Christ.
Thus it is equally acceptable to speak of “the kingdom of Christ and of God”
(Eph. 5:5) and of the world dominion “‘of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev. 11:15).
The rule of Christ and the rule of God are in other words identical. When the rule
of Christ has become established, it is taken up into the rule of God (Rev. 5:10; 2:4,
6; 22:5); at the end of time Christ hands back to the Father the kingdom he has
received from him (1 Cor. 15:24-28).
388
KING
John’s prophecy of the saints reigning a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-7) is, from
the point of view of historical criticism (Traditionsgeschichte), an interpretation of
the apocalyptic motif of a messianic kingdom as a period preceding the final
realization of the kingdom of God. The doctrine of the millennium represents a
coming together of the two parallel kinds of eschatology current in Ist century
Judaism: the nationalistic, messianic eschatology, and the cosmic, universal view.
The length of this messianic reign as a period preceding the kingdom of God is
variously given in Jewish apocalyptic writings. The rule of Christ and the rule of
God are not, however, two kingdoms following one another in succession, but one
kingdom of Christ which issues finally in the kingdom of God. (On the interpreta-
tions of pre-millenarianism, post-millenarianism and amillenarianism — Chiliasm
in the Glossary of Technical Terms, and —> Number, art. chilias.) | _B. Klappert
—> Caesar, — Parable, — Present
(a). S. Aalen, ‘‘ ‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels’, N7‘S 8, 1961-62,
215-40; A. Alt, ‘‘The Monarchy in Israel and Judah’, Essays on Old Testament History and
Religion, 1966, 239-59; K. Barth, ‘““The Royal Man’’, CD IV, 2, 154-264; A. Bentzen, King and
Messiah, 1955; L. Berkhof, The Kingdom of God: The Development of the Idea of the Kingdom,
especially since the Eighteenth Century, 1951; J. Bright, The Kingdom of God, 1953; S. Brown,
‘“* ‘The Secret of the Kingdom of God’ (Mark 4:11)”, JBL 92, 1973, 60-74; M. Buber, Kingship
of God, 1967°; M. Burrows, ‘““Thy Kingdom Come’’, JBL 74, 1955, 1-8; L. Cerfaux, Christ in the
Theology of St. Paul, 1959, 92-106; D. J. A. Clines, ‘““The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year
in Pre-Exilic Israel and Judah Reconsidered”, JBL 93, 1974, 22-40; and “‘The Psalms and the
King”, Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin, 71, 1975, 1-6; O. Cullmann, ‘‘The Kingship of
Christ and the Church in the New Testament”, The Early Church, 1956, 105-40; N. A. Dahl,
‘‘Parables of Growth’’, StTh 5, 1952, 132-66; G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 1902; D. Daube,
‘Violence to the Kingdom’’, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956, 285-300; C. H.
Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 1935; J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, SBT 1976;
I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, (1943) 1967; J. de Fraine, “‘King-
ship’, EBT II 470 ff.; H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 1948; R. H. Fuller, The Mission and
Achievement of Jesus, 1954; A. Gelston, “A Note on YHWH milk’, Vetus Testamentum 16,
1966, 507-12; T. F. Glasson, His Appearing and His Kingdom: The Christian Hope in the Light of
its History, 1953; J. Gray, ‘“The Kingship of God in the Prophets and Psalms’’, Vetus Testamentum
11, 1961, 1-26; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity,
1969; R. H. Hiers, The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition, 1970; S. H. Hooke, ed., Myth,
Ritual and Kingship, 1958; M. Hopkins, God’s Kingdom in the Old Testament, 1963; J. Jeremias,
The Parables of Jesus, 19637; A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 1955; 8. E. Johnson,
‘‘King Parables in the Synoptic Gospels”, JBL 74, 1955, 37 ff.; W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark:
A New Place and a New Time, 1974; J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, and
Kingdom, 1975; H. Kleinknecht, G. von Rad, K. G. Kuhn, and K. L. Schmidt, basileus etc.,
TDNT I 564-93; W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus,
19617; and “‘Eschatological Espectation in the Proclamation of Jesus’’, in J. M. Robinson, ed., The
Future of our Religious Past, Essays in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann, 1971, 29-48; G. E. Ladd,
Crucial Questions about the Kingdom of God, 1952; ‘““The Kingdom of God: Reign or Realm?”
JBL 81, 1962, 230-38; ‘“‘The Life-Setting of the Parables of the Kingdom’’, JBL 82, 1963, 193-99;
The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God, 1959; and Jesus and the
Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism, 1966 (rev. ed., The Presence of the Future, 1974);
R. Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror, 1954; G. Lundstrém, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of
Jesus, 1963; V. Maag, “‘malkut YHWH’’, Congress Volume, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 7,
1960, 129-53; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956; The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, I-II, 1962;
and ‘‘General, Oriental and Specific Israelite Elements in the Israelite conception of the Sacral
Kingdom’’, in La Regalita Sacra. The Sacral Kingship, Studies in the History of Religions 4, 1959,
283-93; M. Noth, ““God, King and Nation in the Old Testament”’ and “The Holy Ones of the
Most High’’, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 145-79, 215-28; R. Otto, The
Kingdom of God and the Son of Man: A Study in the History of Religion, 1938; N. Perrin, The
389
KING/KNOWLEDGE
Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, 1963; and Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom:
Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation, 1976; H. Ridderbos, The Coming of the
Kingdom, 1962; A. Robertson, Regnum Dei: Eight Lectures on the Kingdom of God in the History
of Christian Thought (Bampton Lectures, 1901), 1901; J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and his Coming,
1951; R. Schnackenburg, ‘‘Kingdom of God’’, EBT II 455-70; and God’s Rule and God’s Kingdom,
1963; A. Schweitzer, The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity, 1968; H. E. Todt, The Son
of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, 1965; R. de Vaux, “The King of Israel, Vassal of Yahweh’’, in
The Bible and the Ancient Near East, 1972, 152-66; G. Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the
Kingdom of God and the Church, 1951; T. B. L. Webster, From Mycenae to Homer, 1958; R. N.
Whybray, “Some Historical limitations of Hebrew Kingship’”’, Church Quarterly Review, 163,
1962, 136-50; and The Succession Narrative, 1968; G. Widengren, ‘“‘“King and Covenant’, JSS 2
1957, 1-32.
(b). A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, \-III, 1956-64; K. H. Bernhardt,
Das Problem der altorientalischen K6nigsideologie im Alten Testament, Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 8, 1961; H. Bietenhard, Das tausendjahrige Reich, 1955; J. Bonsirven, Le Régne de
Dieu, 1957; H. Conzelmann, “‘Gegenwart und Zukunft in der synoptischen Tradition’, Z7K
54, 1957, 277 ff.; N. A. Dahl, ‘““Der gekreuzigte Messias’’, in H. Ristow and K. Matthiae, eds.,
Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, 1960, 149 ff.; E. Fascher, ‘““Gottes K6nigtum
im Urchristentum’”’ Numen 4, 1957, 85 ff.; J. de Fraine, ‘“‘L’aspect religieux de la royauté Israélite’’,
Analecta Biblica 3, 1954; K. Galling, H. Conzelmann, E. Wolff, G. Gloege, “‘Reich Gottes’’,
RGG? V 912 ff.; H. Gross, Weltherrschaft als religidse Idee im Alten Testament und Judentum,
1953; and Die Idee des ewigen und allgemeinen Weltfriedens im alten Orient und im Alten Testament,
1956; G. Harder, “‘Das Gleichnis von der selbstwachsenden Saat”, ThV 1948-49, 51 ff.; J. Héring,
La Royaume de Dieu et sa Venue, (1937) 19597; E. Jiingel, “‘Die Gottesherrschaft als die Jesu
Verktindigung autorisierende Macht’, Paulus und Jesus, (1962) 1967%, 174 ff.; H.-J. Kraus, Die
Konigsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament, BHTh 13, 1951; W. G. Kiimmel, ‘‘Futurische and
pradsentische Eschatologie im 4ltesten Christentum’, N7S 4, 1959-60, 113-26 (reprinted in
Heilsgeschen und Geschichte, 1965, 351 ff.); J. Lebram, “‘Die Weltreiche in der jiidischen
Apokalyptik”, ZNW 55, 1964, 143 ff.; E. Lohse, “‘Die Gottesherrschaft in den Gleichnissen Jesu’’,
EvTh 18, 1958, 145 ff.; W. Michaelis, ‘““Reich Gottes und Aonenwende in der Verktindigung
Jesu’, in Neutestamentliche Aufsdtze. Festschrift fiir J. Schmid, 1963, 161 ff.; R. Morgenthaler,
Kommendes Reich, 1952; S. Mowinckel, Zum israelitischen Neujahrsfest und zur Deutung der
Thronbesteigung-Psalmen, 1952; F. Mussner, “Die Bedeutung von Mk. 1, 14f. fiir die Reich-
Gottes-Verkiindigung Jesu’, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 68, 1957; 257 ff. (reprinted in
Praesentia Salutis. Gesammelte Studien zu Fragen und Themen des Neuen Testament, 1967, 81 ff.);
G. von Rad, Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel, (1951) 1965’, 6 ff., 14 ff.; L. Rost, ‘““K6nigsherrschaft
Jahwes in vorkOniglicher Zeit?”’, TLZ 85, 1960, 721 ff.; A. Rtistow, ‘‘entos hymon estin. Zur
Deutung von Lk. 17, 20-21”, ZNW 51, 1960, 197 ff.; W. Schmidt, Kdnigtum Gottes in Ugarit und
Israel, 1961; R. Schnackenburg, “‘Das “Reich Gottes’ im Neuen Testament’’, BuL 1, 1960, 143 ff.;
J. A. Soggin, melek, THAT I 908-20; E. Staehelin, Die Verkiindigung des Reiches Gottes in der
Kirche Jesu Christi. Zeugnisse aus allen Jahrhunderten und allen Konfessionen, \-VII, 1951-65;
A. Strobel, Kerygma und Apokalyptik, 1967; P. Vielhauer, ““Gottesreich und Menschensohn in
der Verktindigung Jesu’, in Festschrift fiir G. Dehn, 1957, 51 ff. (reprinted in Aufsdtze zum Neuen
Testament, 1965, 55 ff.); G. Widengren, Sakrales Konigtum im Alten Testament und Judentum,
1955; H. A. Wilcke, Das Problem eines messianischen Zwischenreiches bei Paulus, AThANT 51, 1967.
Knowledge, Experience, Ignorance
One of the most important marks of man as a rational being is his capacity to
order and clarify his impressions of the world that surrounds him and to articulate
standards of behaviour. Cognition, practical knowledge and theoretical under-
standing are attained when the mind reflects on and judges sense experience.
Originally both aisthanomai and gindsko referred to experiencing an object through
the senses. But whereas aisthésis and its cognates expressed physical apprehension
390
KNOWLEDGE
through the senses apart from the intellectual act of interpretation, gindsko and its
cognates included from the very first the idea of grasping and understanding the
object perceived by the mind. Owing largely though not exclusively to the usage
of the LXX, aisthanomai came to be confined to perception by the senses. The
words of the gindské group, however, embrace the whole gamut of knowledge
from knowing things to knowing persons. When this process results in an item or
body of knowledge which may serve as a basis for further thought and action, oida
(infin. eidenai), to know, is used parallel to the perf. of gindsko. Both contain the
implication of certainty based on experience. Examples of the use of oida are given
under ginosko.
The present article is concerned mainly with the activity of knowing. It therefore
does not include a comprehensive study of the complexities of gnosticism. On
points where the latter touches on theology and Christian conduct see the appro-
priate key term (e.g. > Lord’s Supper, > Heaven, — Body, — Soul).
The article on agnoed, not to know, be ignorant of, deals with the opposite of
knowledge, and illustrates the extent to which experience, knowledge, and obedience
are linked in biblical thought.
: — aic@naic (aisthésis), experience; aic@ytypiov (aisthé-
| aig @yaic | ,
térion), organ of sense, faculty.
CL aisthésis means perception by the senses (in contrast to knowledge through
rational deduction), experience, sensation; in an ethical context it means
judgment, e.g. on the worthlessness of desire (Epict., Dissertationes 2, 18, 8).
aisthétérion is the organ of sense.
oT In the LXX aisthésis is used predominantly in the wisdom literature, especially
as a rendering of da‘at, knowledge, wisdom, with the meaning of true insight.
It can frequently include ethical discrimination and decision. aisthétérion is the
organ where this discrimination is made (cf. Jer. 4:19). This insight stands in
contrast to inexperience (Prov. 1:4), lack of — discipline (Prov. 12:1) and folly |
(Prov. 15:7). The father urges his son “to cry out for insight” (Prov. 2:3) for
such — wisdom brings true knowledge of God (Prov. 2:4 ff.). The two are so
identified that the opposite can be said, ““The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge”’ (Prov. 1:7). Experience of God and experience of the world belong
inseparably together.
NT In the NT aisthésis and aisthétérion are each used only once.
1. In Phil. 1:9 Paul places discernment (aisthésis) and knowledge (gnosis) side
by side as two of love’s expressions and functions. Knowledge is directed primarily
to God; true discernment is necessary for human relationships, where it must
distinguish between good and evil and judge accordingly (cf. especially v. 10).
2. Heb. 5:14 says of “‘the mature’’ that they “‘have their faculties [aisthétéria]
trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.’”’ The concrete organ of sense
has here become virtually a habitual ability which must, however, be developed and
which enables believers to distinguish between the spirits. It is a spiritual gift which
must be developed in practice, E. Schitz
391
\
KNOWLEDGE
[dono | VIVOOKM (gindsko), know, come to know, understand,
comprehend, perceive, recognize; yy@aic (gnosis), know-
ledge; émiyiv@oKa@ (epigindsko), know, understand, recognize; éxlyvmaic (epig-
nosis), knowledge, recognition.
cL The original form gignosko is found from Homer on; the shortened form
gindsko was Aeolic and Jonic, but appears in common Gk. from Aristotle
(384-322 B.c.). They are formed from the root gno-, found in Lat. (g)noscere,
ignorare, and Eng. can and know. The nouns gnosis and gnomé, means of knowing,
thought, judgment, opinion, are from the same root.
1. In secular Gk. the vb. is used with the following range of meanings.
(a) Basically it means to notice, perceive, or recognize a thing, person, or situa-
tion through the senses, particularly the sight. (Seeing and gindsko are linked in
Homer, Od. 15, 532 and 24, 217.) This leads to an intelligent ordering in the mind
of what has been so perceived in the world of experience. Thus the vb. also means
experience, learn, get to know: what has been experienced becomes known to
the one who has experienced it. This leads to the difference in meaning (which
becomes clear in the later linguistic usage) between gindské and aisthanomai,
perceive (without necessarily understanding). The noun gndsis (from Heraclitus
on) also originally expressed the act of knowing through experience.
(b) Occasionally gindsko means to distinguish, for experience or recognition of a
phenomenon among similar or different ones may lead to this (cf. Homer, J/. 5,
128, 182).
(c) Familiarity leads to personal acquaintance. Hence gindské also means to
know in a personal way (Heracl., Frag. 97), to understand (already in Homer Od.
16, 136), to know (Democ., Frag. 198; used par. with oida), to be acquainted with,
to be expert (gndstos, an expert, Plato, Rep. 1, 347d), and to judge (Dem. 658, 23).
Similarly gndsis is repeatedly found with the meaning knowledge, insight (in Plato
and Sophocles), and gndmé with that of insight (Herodotus, Thucydides), reflection
(Xen., Cyr. 1, 3, 10), will, disposition, and finally judgment, opinion, verdict.
(d) ginosk6 may be used to express a relationship of trust between persons, 1.e.
to recognize as friend, love as a friend (Xen., Cyr. 1, 4, 27; cf. gnostos, familiar with,
from Aesch., Cho. 691). It is questionable whether the Hellenistic usage, to know
(carnally) i.e. to have sexual relations with, 1s derived from this. It is possible that
the borrowing of a non-Gk. usage lies behind it. It has, however, been pointed
out that its root is related to Lat. gignere, beget (cf. H. Leisegang, Die Gnosis, 19554,
32; — Birth, art. ginomai).
(ec) Knowledge of situations can be reached by reflecting, judging and investigat-
ing, 1.e. by logical thought-processes. The inscription at Delphi, gndthi sauton,
‘““Know thyself’’, is a summons to reflection and self-examination.
(f) Since verdicts in criminal and civil courts were based on a weighing of given
facts, they could be expressed by gindsko in the passive, with the meaning to be
judged.
(g) The object of knowledge may be a concrete object or an idea in the mind of
the thinking subject. Especially in philosophy speculative cognition in this latter
sense plays a great part. But even here knowing was regarded in great measure as
seeing, “the seeing of the soul [omma tés psychés|” (cf. Plato Rep. 533). This may
392
KNOWLEDGE
be seen from the concrete character of the expressions used for speculation: e.g.
theéred look at, observe, contemplate; skopeod look into, examine, inspect; and by
calling the knowledge so obtained eidos, idea (Democritus, Plato; > Image).
The goal of philosophical knowledge was seeing — not the seeing of transient and
changeable earthly phenomena, but of the lasting and real, which could be seen
only by the eyes of the soul. Accordingly in such contexts one should render
ginodsko by gain insight, perceive (intuitively). The objects of such insight may
ultimately belong to the religious sphere (Herach., Frag. 5).
With ginosko there is always the implication of grasping the full reality and
nature of the object under consideration. It is thus distinguished from mere opinion
(doked; — Think), which may grasp the object half-correctly, inadequately or
even falsely. This finds expression in the late phrase attributed, perhaps wrongly,
to Apollonius of Tyana gnosis thedn, ou doxa, “‘Knowledge of the gods, not opinion”’
(Epistula 52).
2. The above indicated uses of gindsko and its derivatives are also found in Hel.
Gk. In addition, however, we find a growing use of the terms, based on a fairly
loose link with the language of Gk. philosophy. They appear in the widely different
systems of thought and conceptual schemes influenced by syncretism which from
an early period have been bracketed together under the title of gnosticism (Gk.
gnosis). However, the terms gnosis and gnostic were used by only some of these
groups to describe themselves (cf. Iren., Haer. 1, 11, 1; 1, 26, 3; Pauly-Wissowa,
VII 2, 1004 ff.; H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 19637, 32 ff.). It lies beyond the
scope of the present article to attempt a comprehensive survey of gnostic thought,
but certain features of gnosticism may be mentioned.
(a) In Hellenistic culture men adopted a new attitude to the world which involved
an a priori doubt about the possibility of arriving at the truth about the world and
reality along rational lines. Man experiences the world and history more or less
as an impenetrable fate which he cannot influence and to which he is handed over
like a powerless slave without his consent. He finds the world more a prison than a
home. His existence on earth and in history is lived out in a strange land and in
misery. Hence, he looks for freedom and escape from the compulsion imposed on
him in an alien world. He finds one way of escape in gnosis. In this context it does
not mean the mental penetration of things by logical thought as was the case in
Gk. philosophy, for it was now widely held that the answer of the universe to
rational questions was either silence or lies. The answer of the gnostic was not from
within this world, but from the non-cosmic, from outside the universe, from a divine
source, diametrically opposed to the cosmic. It came through revelation given in
grace to men (cf. Od.Sol. 7:3, 6). The cosmic presupposition of gnosticism was
dualism which made an absolute separation between God and the world. The ways
and means by which one could acquire knowledge of this other reality were
varied, and included sacramentalism, magic, mysticism, semi-philosophical specu-
lation.
(b) By the nature of things gndsis was primarily man’s knowledge of himself,
of his true nature, which would explain to him his inharmonious relationship with
his manner of existence on earth and in history. It would thus show him the way
back to — salvation. It was a knowledge of past, present and future. It is the
knowledge ‘“‘who were we? what have we become? where were we? into what have
393
KNOWLEDGE
we been cast? whither are we hastening? from what are we delivered ? what is birth?
what is rebirth?’ (Clement of Alexandria, Excerpta ex Theodoto, 1, 78, 2; cf. W.
Foerster, Gnosis, I, 1972, 230). gnosis included cosmology, cosmogony and theo-
logical knowledge only in so far as they might teach man what he is; ‘“‘man stands
in the centre of the gnostics’ interest’ (G. Quispel, Gnosis als Weltreligion, 1951,
29).
(c) The gnostic myth of ‘‘the tragic history of the soul” (TDNT I 695) which
appears in many different forms, attempts to give the answer to the gnostic’s
question about his own nature. This myth tells of the divine origin of the — soul,
which as the result of a primeval fall was exiled and fettered to matter, which is
hostile to God, i.e. to the — body. “‘Man by nature does not belong in any way to
this world; his original home is beyond the spheres of the visible universe” (G.
Quispel, ibid.). That is why man cannot feel at home in the cosmos, for this cosmos
and the God of the soul have nothing in common. Hence, man is plagued by a vague,
hopeless longing to leave the world. The less he has been lost to the cosmos, the
stronger is the longing. If he has surrendered completely to the cosmos there is no
hope of salvation left for him. He perishes along with matter, since there is no
“‘soul-substance”’ left in him, for this alone is capable of salvation. The process of
salvation begins when the hopeless and vague longing is replaced by instruction
about the unknown God out there (agnostos propator or patér, Epiph., Haer. 1,
23, 1; agndstos theos, Iren., Haer. 4, 20, 2), the original divinity of the soul, its
‘fall’, the cosmos and its matter which is anti-God, and about the way the soul
takes to its divine home. All this is an illumination which comes to man as an
external “‘call’’ and divine — revelation. If the call is heard by those that belong
to it, there is no obstacle to prevent the divine soul from returning to the divinity
and being deified (Corp. Herm. 1, 26a; 13, 4). Salvation is here and now. The
return can be anticipated in the ecstatic state (cf. Iren., Haer., 3, 15, 2). ““He who has
achieved gnosis is good, and pious, even already divine” (Corp. Herm. 10, 9).
Though gnosis gives the appearance of being a way to salvation through grace, it is
in fact a grandiose attempt at self-salvation, for all that is redeemed and glorified is
the soul which is in any case essentially divine. The gnostic is a physei sozomenos,
someone saved by nature (Clem.Alex., Strom. 2, 3; cf. 4, 13).
(d) All this led to a characteristic gnostic attitude to life which was itself termed
gnosis (Iren., Haer. 1, 33, 3). It expressed itself in a feeling of superiority over all
non-gnostics — in Christian gnosticism, over all mere believers. This may be seen
both in their extreme claims, e.g. to be theon egnokenai monoi, the only ones to
know God (Clem.Alex., Strom. 3, 4, 31), and in their negative ethics, ascetic or
antinomian, which were motivated by the gnostic’s assurance that his true self was
not part of the cosmos. Hence there was no reason why he should obey the claims
he attributed to the cosmos. Moral rules were either demands of purely cosmic
powers intended to reduce men to slavery (Iren., Haer. 1, 23, 3) or purely human
values (Iren., Haer. 1, 25, 4). Whether by asceticism or libertinism, the gnostic
sought to demonstrate his scorn of them and his freedom from all worldly ties.
Gnosticism is, therefore, a general term denoting a manner of life which sprang
from a denial of the validity of human existence in history and the cosmos. It found
expression for its beliefs in a syncretistic mythology, and expressed itself in the
negation of ethics.
394
KNOWLEDGE
oT In the OT, as with the common Gk. attitude, knowledge is derived through the
senses; the thing to be known must present itself to the senses and so let itself
be known. Hence we find vbs. of hearing (~ Hear) and seeing (— See) parallel to
vbs. of knowing (e.g. Exod. 16:6 f.; Deut. 33:9; 1 Sam. 14:38; Isa. 41:20). It is
easy to understand why the LXX rendered rd’Gh, see (Jdg. 2:7), hazah, see (Isa.
26:11), and Sama‘, hear (Neh. 4:15[MT 4:9]), by gindsko. The concepts of knowing
in Gk. and Heb. thought largely coincide, and for both experience through the
senses is fundamental.
1. In the LXX the gindské word-group is used mainly to render words formed
from the. Heb. root yada‘ which has a very wide range of meaning. If one starts
with the basic meaning (a) to notice, experience, observe (e.g. Gen. 3:7; 41:31;
Jdg. 16:20; Eccl. 8:5; Isa. 47:8; Hos. 5:3), then the observing of things like good
and bad (2 Sam. 19:35 [MT 19:36]) or right and left (Jon. 4:11) leads to distin-
guishing between them. Hence, gindsko means (b) to distinguish between. Know-
ledge passed on by a third party gives the meaning (c) of know by learning (Prov.
30:3). (d) Experience becomes a reality in a relationship based on familiarity with
the person or thing known. The use of yada‘ in the wisdom literature is an example
of this. It speaks of a knowledge which is empirical and living, obtained by obser-
vation of the world and life as the work of God, which in turn leads to an upright
life before God (Prov. 2:6; Eccles. 8:17). (e) Knowledge, i.e. familiarity with a
thing or situation, can result in technical ability, i.e. to know how to do something
(1 Ki. 7:14 [LXX 7:2]; cf. Gen. 25:27; 1 Sam. 16:16, 18; Isa. 47:11). @) In
certain circumstances observation and resultant action (or failure to act) become
closely linked. Hence, gindsko also means to concern oneself with, care for, trouble
oneself with, or their negatives (e.g. Prov. 27:23; Pss. 1:6, 37:18 [LXX 36:18];
119:79 [LXX 118:79], and to want to have to do with (or its negative) (e.g. Deut.
33:9). Frequently in theological contexts it is a question of knowledge not properly
obtained, leading to lack of interest (e.g. Jer. 8:7; Ps. 95:10[LXX 94:10]; Isa. 1:3).
(g) To know can also mean to have sexual relations with (Gen. 4:1; 19:8; cf.
2:23; — Join). (h) To know another person “face to face’ means to have a personal
and confidential relationship with another person (e.g. Deut. 34:10). The expres-
sion has no sexual connotations. When God knows a person (Jer. 1:5) or a people
(Amos 3:2) he chooses or — elects him (cf. Num. 16:5 LXX). This knowledge,
understood as election, is gracious and loving (see above (f)), but it demands a
personal response. (i) The distinctiveness of the OT concept of knowledge is clearly
seen in passages which speak of man’s knowledge of God, 1.e. of his grateful and
obedient recognition (see 2 below). “If one asks ... for the central concept which
makes comprehensible the varied uses of the one root, it is to be found in the con-
cept of cognition. All the activities listed are merely variations on this’? (H. W.
Wolff, ““Erkenntnis Gottes im Alten Testament”, EvTh 15, 1955, 426 f.).
2. Knowledge of God is always linked with God’s acts of self-revelation. This is
illustrated in the formula, ‘““And you [or they] shall know that I am Yahweh.”
This is found 54 times in Ezek., and occurs also elsewhere in the OT. It is always
linked with the proclamation of some specific act by Yahweh: e.g. Ezek. 6:7, 13,
14; 7:4; 11:10, 11 f.; 12:14 f., 16 (after pronouncement of judgment on Israel);
25:5 (after pronouncement of judgment on Ammon); 28:26; 37:6 (after a promise
of salvation); cf. also Exod. 6:7; 7:5, 17; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 29:46; 1 Ki. 20:13,
395
KNOWLEDGE
28; Isa. 45:3, 6 f.; 49:23, 26. In 2 Ki. 5:15 Naaman the Syrian comes to a know-
ledge of the God of Israel through the healing of his — leprosy. In Sir. 36:4 f. God
is asked to reveal himself to the nations, that they too may recognize that there is
no other God beside Yahweh (cf. the 4th benediction in the Eighteen Benedictions;
for text — Prayer, art. proseuchomai OT 5).
It is not only the uniqueness of Yahweh’s acts in the past or future that leads toa
knowledge of God. The testimony to God’s past actions, by which the past is
repeatedly made present (Exod. 10:1 f.; 18:8-11), and signs grounded in salvation
history (including the — sabbath) are capable of bringing about knowledge of
Yahweh (Exod. 31:13; Ezek. 20:12—20). Hence, knowledge of God arises uniquely
from the revealing acts of God and the testimony to them. In fact, knowledge of
God and knowledge of his acts coincide (Mic. 6:5). Knowledge of God in the
OT is not concerned with the speculative question of the being of God, but in
the God who, working in — grace and — judgment, has turned to men. To know
him means to enter into the personal relationship which he himself makes possible.
Israel’s intimate relationship with God required that the nation’s conduct should
correspond to God’s actions. The command “‘Be still, and know that I am God’’
(Ps. 46:10[MT 46:11; LXX 45:11]) does not in the first instance mean that the
nations attacking Yahweh’s city should undergo a purely religious conversion to
Yahweh. Rather, they should abandon their rebellion in recognition of Yahweh’s
rule in history. In the rhetorical questions of Jer. 22:15 f., knowledge of God is
clearly interpreted as doing justice and righteousness, particularly to the poor and
needy. In Jdg. 2:10 f. not knowing Yahweh and his work done for Israel results
in doing evil in the sight of Yahweh. Similarly in Hos. 4:1 f. knowledge of Yahweh
is directly related to specific behaviour; lack of faithfulness and disloyalty to the
—> covenant are bound up with lack of knowledge of God. The result is a break-
down of human relationships. For Hosea too knowledge of God means knowledge
of God’s saving acts for Israel (13:4, cf. also 4:6; 5:4; 6:6; 8:2). (On Hosea see
H. W. Wolff, “‘ “Wissen um Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie’”’, EvTh 12,
1952-53, 533 ff.; and Hosea, Hermeneia, 1974.) In the wisdom literature fear of
Yahweh and knowledge of God are interchangeable terms (— Fear, art. phobos).
3. Summary. While the Gks. were concerned with detached knowledge and a
speculative interest in the metaphysical nature of things, the OT regards knowledge
as something which continually arises from personal encounter. When the OT
makes statements about —> God and — creation, we should not regard them as
ontological deductions, but as declarations of faith in response to God’s — revela-
tion. For knowledge of God is related to the revelation of God in the historic past
and the promised future, in the earthly sphere in which God’s creatures have their
being. As Israel continually inquired into God’s revelation in the past, present and
future, he discerned the purposes and demands of God in worship and in conduct.
4. (a) The confrontation between Hellenistic Judaism and polytheism led to the
development of a semi-dogmatic concept of the knowledge of God. The knowledge
of God meant above all knowing that there was one God, and combatting the
claims of heathen deities to be gods (cf. Jud. 2:20; Ep.Jer. passim; cf. Sib. 3:429 f.).
The question of the possibility of knowing God was also raised and answered as
the Stoics did by stressing the possibility of knowing him through his creation (e.g.
Wis. 13:1-9; Syr.Bar 54:17 f.; Philo, Virt. 215 f.; Syr.Bar. 54:17 f.). Judaism was
396
KNOWLEDGE
obviously also involved in controversy with the gnostics. Hagigah 2:1 (Mishnah
and Tosefta) warns against speculations about what was before the creation, and
what will be when the earth passes away (cf. H. Jonas, Gnosis und spdtantiker Geist,
II, 1, 1954, 206; H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spdt-
judentum, 1951, 53 ff.; SB I 191; III 33, 378). This does not exclude the possibility
that a gnostic answer may have been given to the question of the knowability of
God, as may be inferred from the expression phos gnoseos, light of knowledge,
occurring a number of times in Test.XII (e.g. Test.Lev. 4:3; 18:3; Test.Ben. 11:2;
cf. Philo, Migr.Abr. 34 f.; Som. 2, 226).
(b) There appear to be some contacts between the OT and the Hel.-gnostic
concepts of knowledge because in both knowledge of God comes by revelation.
In the latter, however, the place of history is consistently denied, whereas in the
former the knowledge of God is inseparably bound up with God’s revelation in
time and space.
(c) In the inter-testamental period the Qumran texts, in which yada‘ and da‘at
are central ideas, show a remarkable development of the OT concept of knowledge.
In a number of passages knowledge stands by itself. It is one of the most important
fruits of salvation enjoyed by pious members of the Qumran sect (cf. 1QHab. 11:1;
1QS 10:9, 12; 11:6, 15; 1QH 2:18; 11:24; CD 2:4). God himself is the ““God of
knowledge”’ (cf. 1QS 3:15), i.e. the God who possesses all knowledge and from
whom alone man can acquire knowledge. An act of predestination is involved (cf.
1QS 4:25; 1QH 1:7; — Foreknowledge). Hence, God’s knowledge is not purely
intellectual. There are many objects of human knowledge. Of these “‘the secrets”’
or ‘“‘the hidden things’ are frequently mentioned (e.g. 1QH 12:13; 1QS 5:11), by
which the sect meant the revealed secrets of creation, history and the last days.
In this we see the affinity of Qumran teaching with later apocalyptic. God’s
loyalty is also to be known (cf. 1QH 9:9), as is God’s goodness (1QH 14:17),
wisdom (1QH 15:12), glory (1QH 15:20) and even God himself (1QH 1:31).
Hence, the community could call itself “the knowing ones” (1QH 11:14; 14:15).
Alongside this the knowledge of the will of God as revealed in the Torah plays an
important part. Upon it depended a man’s reception and place in the community
(1QS 2:22; cf. 1QS 5:21 ff.). Similar usage occurs in the parallel concepts, sakal,
the root of which means to have insight, and bin, to distinguish, hiph. to under-
stand, and the corresponding nouns. It has been argued that the Qumran texts with
their stress on the concept of knowledge betray the influence of gnostic thought
on Palestinian Judaism. However, the fundamental differences in cosmology,
anthropology, soteriology and ethics must not be overlooked.
NT 1. Survey of use and meaning in the NT. ginosko is found 221 times, of which
82 are in the Johannine literature, 50 in Paul (including the Pastoral Epistles),
and 44 in Lk.-Acts; and epiginosko 44 times, of which 12 instances are in Paul
(including the Pastorals), and 20 in Lk.-Acts. gnosis and epigndsis occur 29 times and
20 times respectively, no less than 38 of them being in Paul (gnosis 23 times;
epignosis 15 times). John does not use them at all, possibly deliberately. The verbal
adj. gndstos is found 15 times (almost only in Jn. and Lk.); gnomé (predominantly
in Paul and Rev.) 9 times.
In a large number of cases we have the general and popular use of the words.
397
KNOWLEDGE
Since Gk. and OT usage are so close, we cannot normally determine the background.
A few examples must suffice: to hear of (Mk. 5:43; Jn. 4:1; Phil. 1:12); notice
(Matt. 16:8; Mk. 6:33 epiginosko; 13:28 f.); feel (Mk. 5:29 f.); recognize (Matt.
7:16 epiginosko; Lk. 24:16; Jas. 2:20, learn); know (Lk. 12:46 ff.; Jn. 1:48; 21:17
together with oida; Rom. 7:15 RSV “understand’’); understand (Mk. 5:13 together
with oida; Lk. 18:34 together with synienai; Jn. 13:7 together with oida); find out
(Jn. 13:35; 15:18; 19:4; 1 Jn. 2:3, 5); distinguish (1 Cor. 14:7), know how to
(Matt. 16:3).
The noun gndémé is found almost only in the usual meaning of opinion, judg-
ment. Thus in | Cor. 7:25 the opinion of the apostle is clearly distinguished from
the “‘ccommand of the Lord’’, but it is still authoritative (cf. v. 40). In Rev. 17:13
it occurs in the phrase ‘“‘of one mind” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10; Rev. 17:17). In Acts 20:3
Paul egeneto gnédmés, came to the opinion, i.e. decided to return through
Macedonia.
2. The influence of OT usage. The universal use of the LXX in the primitive
church, as in Diaspora Judaism, ensured a linguistic continuity between the OT
and the NT documents, or rather between the terms available and their use in the
NT kérygma. But the standpoint of the NT writers who were in part Gentile Chris-
tians speaking to members of the pagan world and the subject matter of their
message, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, modified and gave a new stress
to the OT concept of knowledge. Where it expresses a personal relationship between
the one who knows and the one known, the NT concept of knowledge is clearly
taken from the OT. This applies to sexual relations (Matt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34) and also
to where gindsko means have to do with as in Matt. 7:23, “I never knew you’, i.e.
I never had anything to do with you (cf. Mk. 14:71, where Peter denies his rela-
tionship to Jesus, though he uses oida). The statement in 2 Cor. 5:21 that Christ
‘knew no sin’ does not mean that he had no intellectual knowledge of sin, but
rather that Jesus had no personal truck with sin. It is this that brings out the
enormity and irony of the pronouncement: “‘For our sake he made him to be sin”’
(— Sin). Similarly Rom. 7:7 should be paraphrased: “The human I would have
had no intimate dealings with sin had it not been for the law’’ (cf. Rom. 3:20:
“since through the law comes knowledge of sin’’).
gindsko has also the sense of have to do with, have dealings with, know per-
sonally, in 2 Cor. 5:16. The meaning of this verse is the subject of much contro-
versy. oidamen (“‘we know’’) occurs in the first half and gindsko is used twice in its
second half in the forms egndkamen (‘‘we knew’’) and gindskomen (‘“‘we know’).
In 2 Cor. 5:11-21 Paul is involved in controversy with opponents who attacked
him personally and his claim to be an — apostle. They maintained that he was
lacking in visible spiritual qualities which would authenticate his claim to be an
apostle, e.g. ecstatic phenomena (v. 13). They probably charged him with being a
braggart who commended only himself. Paul is probably referring to this in v. 11
(‘we persuade men’’) and in v. 12 (‘we are not commending ourselves’’). Part of
Paul’s defence is the reference to Christ’s death “‘for all’’, through which ‘“‘all have
died”’ (vv. 14f.), including the man with supposed, visible, spiritual qualities. So,
says Paul, from now on — ever since the events linked with Christ, which mean a
transformation of all values, the turning point of the ages — “‘we know no one
after the flesh’, according to his visible demonstration of the Spirit and power.
398
KNOWLEDGE
We must understand this as the consequence of all dying with Christ (v. 14). In
order to show how obvious this is, he inserts the statement which should be clear
to all, in v. 16 b: ““Even though we may have had acquaintance with Christ accord-
ing to the flesh’’, 1.e. with the visible Christ as he was on earth, “‘we do not know
him as such’’, i.e. have to do with him as such, but only with the invisible, risen
Christ in whose service we stand. Because Christ had died and been raised for all
he is the invisible Lord of all, and his lordship is externally inescapable. Hence both
the apostle and his claims to apostleship, in common with all else that has died
with Christ, are not subject to judgment by external and the normal visible standards.
“In Christ’? only the new creation is of value. The old, including judgment by
outward appearances (en prosopo, v. 12), has passed away and “a new order has
already begun’”’ (v. 17 NEB). In the light of this argument, it is clear that Paul in
2 Cor. 5:16 is neither affirming nor denying that he knew the earthly Jesus per-
sonally. Equally it has no bearing on the meaning of the historic Jesus for Paul.
(a) We find the influence of the OT most clearly in those contexts where the vb.
means to give recognition to. In 1 Cor. 16:18 Paul urges, “Give recognition to
[epiginoskete] such men’’, i.e. to colleagues who have shown their devoted service.
In | Cor. 4:19 Paul tells the Corinthians that, when he comes he will not recognize,
1.e. give weight to, the words of the arrogant (“‘self-important’? NEB) or their
power. In Matt. 17:12 Jesus speaks of the scribes’ failure to recognize John the
Baptist as — Elijah come again, which in effect meant that “they did with him
whatever they pleased.” In the letter to the church in Philadelphia the exalted
Jesus promised that Jews would come to the (Gentile?) Christian church and
recognize that the Risen One loved them (Rev. 3:9; cf. Rev. 2:23). In so doing he
reversed Jewish eschatological hope (cf. E. Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des
Johannes, HNT 16, 1970? ad loc.).
Phrases such as ““know God’s decree’? (Romans 1:32), ““know the law’ (Rom.
7:1), “know his will” (Rom. 2:18; Acts 22:14), ao not imply a merely theor-
etical knowledge, but the recognition that it applies to the person individually
and demands his obedience. (When Paul in Rom. 2:20 calls the law “‘the embodI-
ment of knowledge and truth” in his description of the Jew, he implies a clear
distinction between existential knowledge and theoretical truth.) The Pharisees’
remark that “‘the crowd who do not know the law are accursed”’ (Jn. 7:49) reflects a
well-attested scorn of rabbinic scholars for the common people (cf. SB II 494-521).
It contains the implication that the common people would not have gone after
Jesus if they had really known and obeyed the law. But in recording it Jn. sees an
unconscious irony in the Pharisees’ own failure to see where the law was pointing
them (cf. 7:42, 51 with 5:39 f.; 11:49 ff.). 2 Cor. 10:5 contains the juxtaposition
of “the knowledge of God” and “‘to obey Christ.”’ Even where Paul clearly borrows
the concept of knowledge held by the (Jewish) Hellenistic popular philosophy, he
recasts it. In Rom. 1:28 “The knowledge of God as a question and accessible
possibility does not concern him. What concerns him, rather, is the question
whether this knowledge is personal (1:28), whether the truth of God remains truth
and its power is acknowledged (1:18, 25)’ (G. Bornkamm, Early Christian Ex-
perience, 1969, 56). If such acknowledgment which manifests itself in living obe-
dience is refused, the judgment of God is inevitable. The statement in Rom. 1:21
that those who had known God had become futile in their thinking must have
399
KNOWLEDGE
appeared as a contradiction in terms to Hellenistic thought (— Empty, art. mataios).
Their futility is a result of not knowing God (cf. Wis. 13:1; + agnoed). Paul,
however, considered that the knowledge of God necessarily included proper glori-
fication and gratitude. Hence, the heathen who rejected God reduced this knowledge
to mere intellectual activity, and what they considered wisdom was in fact nothing
but folly (Rom. 1:22 f.). The very fact that, though the heathen undoubtedly knew
God, they refused him due recognition, is the measure of their lack of excuse
(Rom. 1:19 f.; cf. also Jn. 1:10; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 4:8 f.; see further the whole
argument of Bornkamm’s essay on “The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans
1-3)” in op. cit., 47-70). Such recognition of God, where it is found, is a — gift of
God and not something natural. It is based on his > revelation and therefore
remains dependent on revelation (1 Cor. 13:8; 14:6; cf. 2 Cor. 8:7; 2 Pet. 1:5).
Other passages are Phil. 1:9; Col. 1:9 f. (which contains a prayer for a growth in
love with knowledge or in knowledge of the will of God; cf. Eph. 1:17); 2 Pet. 1:2
(in the prayer for blessing in the introduction); | Cor. 1:5; Col. 3:10 (note the
pass. vb.); 1 Cor. 2:11, 14. Consequently, this knowledge of God which comes
about through the acceptance of salvation in the — forgiveness of sins alone can
be nothing other than the gift of God (cf. Lk. 1:7).
Nevertheless, in apparent contradiction to its gift-like charismatic character,
knowledge in the NT involves the ready will of the man who receives it. Through
disobedience, ingratitude and prevarication he can fail to appropriate it. Hence, the
imperatives and exhortations in the NT are calls to grasp the gift and use it aright
in the changing circumstances of life (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:27; Eph. 5:5; Jas. 1:3; 5:20;
cf. Lk. 10:11; Acts 2:36, where the “house of Israel” is called upon to recognize
the crucified Jesus as the messiah in the light of the events of — Pentecost; cf. also
the imperative in the parable in Matt. 24:43). 2 Cor. 8:9 ff. involves the outworking
of knowledge in practical behaviour. Here the knowledge ‘“‘of the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so
that by his poverty you might become rich”’ finds expression in the collection for
Jerusalem, which Paul was_urging. One should not interpret it, as does Lietzmann,
to mean simply that Christ is an example of generosity (H. Lietzmann, An die
Korinther, HNT 9, 19695 ad loc.). We may also doubt that in 1 Pet 3:7 it is correct to
render the appeal to husbands to live with their wives kata gnosin by ‘“‘considerately”’
(RSV) or ‘“‘with understanding” (NEB). It is rather a call to the practical demon-
stration of the knowledge (of God or of Christ) in the marriage relationship (cf.
TDNT I 708). Knowledge in the sense of recognition is thus always linked with the
practical behaviour of the one who knows and has to do with his way of life (Col.
1:9 f.) which should bring credit to the One known.
(b) We also find typical OT usage in the NT in the case of God’s knowledge.
This refers to God’s loving, electing knowledge of men (cf. 2 Tim. 2:19 quoting
Num. 16:5; the passives in | Cor. 8:3 [see below]; 1 Cor. 13:12; and Gal. 4:9).
Rom. 11:33 should be mentioned in this connection. God’s knowledge here includes
the whole activity of God, which takes in Gentiles and Jews alike. It is eternally
valid for his creatures and triumphs over guilt and disobedience. Rom. 10:2 is a
sort of counterpart. Here Paul acknowledges the Jews’ zeal for God, but it is not
kata epignosin, “in accordance with [real] knowledge”’ (cf. Arndt, 291). ‘““This does
not mean that the Jews lack a deeper insight into the being of God. The knowledge
400
KNOWLEDGE
they lack is the knowledge and recognition of God’s ways” (E. Gaugler, Der Brief
an die Romer, 1959? ad loc.).
(c) There are, however, passages where gindsko implies theological and theo-
retical knowledge. This overtone cannot be immediately derived from OT usage
(see 4 below). Matt. 13:11 and Lk. 9:10 (cf. Mk. 4:11) speak of a hidden knowledge
granted only to the — disciples, concerning “the mysteries of the > kingdom of
God’’. This knowledge made them authoritative interpreters of the — parables,
which otherwise are hidden from men (~ Explain; — Hide; — Secret). Col. 2:2
contains the phrase epigndsin tou mystériou tou theou Christou. The uncertainty of
how the text should be taken is reflected by the v./. which has theou kai patros kai
tou Christou (““God and Father and of Christ’’) and by several other variants (cf.
E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 1971, 82). But the RSV seems to give the most
likely rendering: “the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ’. At any rate, it has a
certain esoteric colouring. Essentially it involves a knowledge of God, but this
knowledge is described as a mystery which is not open to all, but only to the saints
to whom God has proclaimed his secret (Col. 1:26).
But even the knowledge of theological truths, e.g. of a particular teaching about
baptism, has as its object obedience which expresses itself in life (Rom. 6:6). The
express purpose of such knowledge mentioned is that ‘‘we might no longer be
enslaved to sin.”’
3. The use of the word-group in the NT controversy with Gnosticism. A number of
contemporary scholars see evidence of a conflict with gnosticism in a variety of NT
passages. ([Ed.] The bibliography at the end of this article gives details of works by
Bultmann, Jonas, Schmithals and others who adopt this view, together with works
by R. McL. Wilson and E. M. Yamauchi and others who take a more cautious view.
In assessing what influence, if any, gnosticism had on the NT several facts need to
be borne in mind. The extant sources of gnosticism, like the known leading gnostic
teachers, are substantially later than the NT. Certain gnostic ideas appear to be
indebted to the NT itself. Moreover, the extant gnostic texts display a wide variety
of beliefs which make it impossible to treat gnosticism as if it were a homogeneous
belief-system. It would be uncritically simplistic to label someone a “‘gnostic”’
simply because he lays claim to gnoésis [knowledge] and to attribute to him without
further evidence the belief-systems of Valentinus or Basilides. On the other hand,
there were those in NT times who vaunted their superior knowledge [1 Cor. 1:18-
2:16; 8:1; 13:12 f.; cf. Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 4:7; 6:20]. It may be that in such passages
we should see incipient tendencies which later flowered into gnosticism as we
know it. But it would be anachronistic to read into these references ideas for which
we have evidence only in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.)
The NT writers frequently found themselves in conflict with travelling preachers
who had their own version of the apostolic kérygma. Timothy was expressly
warned against the “‘godless chatter’ and the “contradictions” of knowledge
(gnosis) falsely so called (1 Tim. 6:20). In Rev. 2:24 opponents are mentioned who
claimed to have learned “the deep things of Satan’’. It may well be that the writer
has sarcastically and with true critical judgment turned round their claim to have
learned ‘“‘the deep things of God” (E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., 29; E. Lohse, Die Offen-
barung des Johannes, NTD 11, 1966?, 29). There is much in Paul’s letters (especially
1 and 2 Cor.; Phil. 3:2 ff.; Col., especially 2:4-23, and perhaps Gal.), and in the
401]
KNOWLEDGE
whole Johannine literature and Jude that might be understood against the back-
ground of anti-gnostic controversy. Our purpose here is to investigate whether the
understanding of knowledge in these NT writers has been influenced by their
gnostic opponents, and if so in what measure.
(a) Paul. In his discussion of the use of food offered to idols Paul quoted the
claim: ““We know that all of us possess knowledge [gnosis]” (1 Cor. 8:1). gnosis
is here thought to be used in typically gnostic fashion without the article. Hence, it
cannot refer merely to knowledge about such food. The important thing is the
possession of gndsis. The deduction was drawn that one may eat food offered to
idols without any scruples. The one who has gnosis is the one who knows the true
being of God and his own originally divine being (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5, where Paul
ironically is aiming his shafts at gnostic self-knowledge). He thus recognizes the
non-reality of the universe, its earthly, historical relationships and regulations, and
finds no problem in eating food offered to idols (cf. Phil. 3:19a; Rev. 2:20) or in
immorality (1 Cor. 6:12—20; Phil. 3:19b.; cf. Rev. 2:20). He considers the question
of resurrection irrelevant (1 Cor. 15:12; cf. Phil. 3:10-16). For such a man even
the historical, earthly Jesus has no relevance (cf. ‘Jesus be anathema”’ [1 Cor.
12:3; >» Curse]; “enemies of the cross of Christ”’ [Phil. 3:18]). Christian gnosticism
applied the dualism of spirit and matter to its christology which was, therefore,
always docetic. Paul measured this gnostic knowledge with the yard-stick of love:
“Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:2b.). The gnostic with his
knowledge was interested only in himself and his claim to a superior freedom loosed
from all carthly ties. Love, on the other hand, is concerned with the building up of
the church, i.e. with the salvation of others in the fellowship of Jesus Christ,
including the weak (1 Cor. 8:9) who do not possess this knowledge (1 Cor. 8:7),
and surely also the outsiders and unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:23).
The knowledge claimed by the Corinthians was thus unacceptable to Paul. “If
any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to
know” (1 Cor. 8:2). This may be compared with 1 Cor. 15:34, where Paul says
that some people have an agndsian . . . theou, ‘“‘ignorance of God’’. In view of this,
Paul was compelled to explain what he understood by knowledge. He. found,it
possible to express knowledge only passively, as a being known (cf. Gal. 4:9,
where he corrects the thought of an active human knowledge of God by adding
“or rather to be known by God’’). This being known is not the counterpart of
some previous active comprehension of God by man, but rather of loving God (cf.
1 Cor. 8:3). Full and real knowledge of God is rather part of the eschatological
—> promise and expectation (1 Cor. 13:12). Paul totally rejected the fantastic
gnostic anticipation of the eschaton (— Goal, art. eschatos), in which being known
by God and the perfect knowledge of God by man come together by simply
disregarding existence on earth and in the body (cf. 2 Tim. 2:18b). For Paul the
whole stress lay on God’s having known us before time. Thus the gndsthénai, being
known by God, involves election (cf. G. Bornkamm, op. cit., 186). If there is any
human knowledge of God, it is the mediated knowledge of God as he revealed
himself in the life and work of Christ. It is the Spirit-given “knowledge of God in
the face of Jesus Christ’”’ (2 Cor. 4:6). Before the eschaton we can know God only
as we know Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:10; cf. Col. 2:2 f.). But Christ is not to be known
through theological speculation, but rather as one is met by him and as one
402
K NOWLEDGE
acknowledges him as the Lord (Phil. 3:8). Such acknowledgement is the counter-
part to having been known by God. Where it does not exist, it is useless to speak of
knowledge; “if any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized”’ (1 Cor.
14:38). Hence — love for God is the counterpart of having been known by God
(1 Cor. 8:3). Love for God, however, takes shape in new obedience to the Lord
Jesus Christ and freedom from the lordship of sin (cf. “in growing conformity
with his death” [Phil. 3:10 NEB] with Rom. 6:3-3), in fellowship with Christ’s
sufferings, and in strenuous service in the resurrection power of Christ, while one
presses on to the promised resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3;10). True knowledge
is the knowledge which God revealed everywhere through the apostolic witness
(2 Cor. 2:14). It is not the final fulfilment. At present it is only fragmentary (1 Cor.
13:12), but it looks to fulfilment. As Paul said in Philem. 6, knowledge is epigndsis
pantos agathou, tou en hémin eis Christon, “‘knowledge of all the good that is ours in
Christ.” The Corinthian gnostics in their pride did not want to know anything of
this knowledge. Hence, Paul ironically demanded of them to “‘acknowledge that
what [I am writing to you is a command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). In the light
of all this it is clear that Paul’s polemics remain essentially within the limits of the
OT concept of knowledge. At the same time he amplifies and works out this con-
cept christologically.
(b) John. The terminology of the Johannine statements about knowledge is
influenced by the gnostic outlook as is the Johannine vocabulary and thought-
world generally. What this means for the theological statements in Jn. will be
discussed later. The gnostic influence on the concept of knowledge may be seen, if
the statements involving gindsko are detached from their contexts and examined
on their own. The very fact that knowledge can represent a mutual and inner fellow-
ship between Jesus and his own, and between Jesus (the Son) and God (the Father)
in Jn. 10:14 f., points to a gnostic background. J. Jeremias (TDNT VI 496, note
106), argues, however, that this reflects a Semitism and not Hellenistic mysticism,
as R. Bultmann maintains in The Gospel of John, 1971, 380 ff. The possibility of
describing knowledge as —> fellowship is based on the personal equality of the one
who knows, the messenger of God who mediates the knowledge, and the God who
is to be known who is utterly transcendent. A gnostic and dualistic contrast between
God and the world is indicated by the statement that the world cannot receive “‘the
Spirit of truth because it neither sees him nor knows him” (Jn. 14:17). The hatred
experienced by Jesus and his disciples (Jn. 15:18; cf. 16:2 f.) is to be understood
as a result of the irremovable distinction between the divine and the earthly.
Similarly the voice of revelation cannot be recognized as such by those who have
the devil and not God as — father (Jn. 8:42-47). Conversely the knowledge of
God includes knowledge of the One he has sent and becomes co-terminous with
eternal life (Jn. 17:3), as with the gnostics. This knowledge which brings salvation
is possible only through the call from outside, the coming of the — Son of God
who has given understanding (dianoia), i.e. the ability to know him who is true (1
Jn. 5:20).
The dependence of Johannine language and the Johannine view of knowledge
on the terminology of gnosticism is understandable if one realizes that the re-
cipients of the Christian message and its opponents influenced the form in which it
was expressed. John’s purpose is to speak to gnostics and therefore he uses their
403
KNOWLEDGE
language. He faces the gnostic on his own ground and combats him with his own
weapons. This does not make the gospel a myth or John a gnostic. We should,
however, investigate what this may mean for our concept of knowledge.
One might say that John has given the gnostic myth an entirely new orientation.
The gnostic understood knowledge as self-knowledge, through which man came to
realize that he was a stranger in the universe and also that he was divine. He thus
experienced deliverance from the world and history alike. For John, knowledge
is of a personal reality that stands over against man. This Other is God mediated
by revelation. Since “‘no one has ever seen God’’ (Jn. 1:18), there can be no im-
mediate knowledge of God or direct fellowship with God. But God may be known
in the One he has sent, his Son (cf. the synoptic parallels Matt. 11:27 and Lk.
10:22). The Son is not, like the saviour in gnosticism, a mythological figure. He
bears the historical name Jesus which unambiguously locates him in time and space.
He is the Logos (—> Word) who has become —> flesh (Jn. 1:14; 1 Jn. 1:1-4). He who
sees Jesus sees the Father (Jn. 14:9; 12:45). He who has known him will know the
Father also, for he has already known him and seen him (Jn. 14:7). Hence, fellow-
ship with God can come only through fellowship with Jesus, for this fellowship
corresponds to Jesus’ fellowship with God (Jn. 10:14f.). On both levels it is
expressed by ginosko.
The fellowship between Jesus and those that are his, made effective by mutual
knowledge, does not imply, as in gnosticism, the deification of man and his com-
plete removal from the world and history. In Jn., knowledge gains its form from the
one God and his revelation in history through historical channels. By sending his
Son, God revealed his love to his own (Jn. 17:23; 1 Jn. 4:9 f.) and to the world
(Jn. 3:16). The Son loved his own according to the measure of his Father’s love
to him (Jn. 15:9; 17:26). Therefore, knowledge by the one loved by God and Jesus
finds expression in the sphere of history in love: “‘He who does not love does not
know God; for God is love’ (1 Jn. 4:8). Just as the Son demonstrated his love
for the Father by obedience to God’s — command (Jn. 14:31), so he who knows
demonstrates his knowledge by keeping God’s command (1 Jn. 2:3 ff.), above all
that of loving his — brother (1 Jn. 4:7 f.; cf. 2:7-11), and by not sinning (1 Jn.
3:6). Thus gindské has a double application: it means knowing the love of God
shown in the sending of his Son (Jn. 17:8; 1 Jn. 3:16), and the obedience of love
based on it which is also described as obedience to the message proclaimed (1 Jn.
4:6). Such knowledge is already eternal — life here and now (Jn. 17:3), because
it is a life in history derived from God’s historical revelation. In view of all this,
John’s concept stands out as deliberately and diametrically opposed to that of
gnosticism.
The striking equation of — faith and knowledge in the relationship of man to
God is also part of the polemic against gnosticism which at the very least depre-
ciated faith in contrast to knowledge. While Jn. 17:3 attributes eternal life to
knowledge, Jn. 3:36 attributes it to faith. In the Johannine version of Peter’s
confession (Jn. 5:69) one might be tempted to see faith as the first step subordinate
to knowledge, but in 1 Jn. 4:16 the order is “know and believe.”
Gnostic self-satisfaction which is concerned only with one’s own salvation is
opposed by emphasis on the existence of the church in brotherly love (Jn. 13:35)
and unity (Jn. 17:21 ff.). Moreover, the ultimate goal behind this will be reached
404
KNOWLEDGE
only when the world comes to believe that the Son has been sent, and when this
revelation becomes known throughout the universe. Such an affirmation is possible
only if John does not share the gnostic dualism of cosmos (creation) and salvation.
For the gnostic this dualism was insurmountable, because it was decreed by a pre-
cosmic fall. According to the gnostic view, the universe was completely and
fatally incapable of knowing God and of being redeemed. For John the world
remains God’s creation (Jn. 1:1 ff.; cf. 1 Jn. 2:14). Not to know, which showed
itself in hatred against Jesus and his disciples, is a result of refusing to believe the
revelation given (Jn. 8:42 f.) which in turn incurs guilt (cf. E. Kasemann, Ver-
ktindigung und Forschung, 19467, 192 f.). “‘If the ‘Jews’ are unable to understand,
it is because they are unable truly to hear. They are prepared to hear only what they
already know, even though of course they are interested in deepening and enriching
this knowledge; but they are not prepared to hear anything new, and so to surrender
all that they knew before, and with it the condition of such knowledge, their own
understanding of themselves. They cannot hear in this way! To raise the question
why they cannot hear would only be to show a lack of understanding that in this
sphere being able to do something and willing to do something are one and the
same” (R. Bultmann, op. cit., 317). The summons to knowledge and faith thus
remains even for the world; God’s love for the world in sending his Son which is
now presented as something real has opened up a new dimension of reality.
Although Jn.’s vocabulary has clear affinities with gnosticism, his subject matter
equally clearly stands much nearer to the concept of knowledge in the OT tradition
than the mythical speculations of gnosticism.
4. Later developments. (a) In the Pastorals, and to some extent in 2 Pet., epignosis
has received a special stamp through the controversy with gnosticism which deviates
from the OT usage. In the earlier Pauline Epistles and the Johannine writings
church doctrine was still in the course of development in the controversy with
gnosticism. In the Pastorals, however, a definite doctrinal tradition is evident, and
all entanglement with “‘godless and silly myths” (1 Tim. 4:7) is forbidden. Hence,
gnostic terminology has been in great measure eliminated and replaced by other
terms. gnosis is regarded as a technical term for the gnostic heresy (cf. 1 Tim. 6:20)
and epigndsis takes its place, when it refers to Christian knowledge (1 Tim. 2:4;
2 Tim. 2:25; 2:7; Tit. 1:1). It has, however, quite clearly an intellectual, semi-
dogmatic stress. The knowledge of God’s truth is of equal importance with experi-
ential profession of the Lord, and finally pushes it into the background. Hence,
conversion to the Christian faith can be described almost technically as coming to a
knowledge (epignosis) of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7; cf. Heb. 10:26; 1 Tim.
5:3; 2 Tim. 2:25; Tit. 1:1; 2 Pet. 2:21). Examples of this concept of truth may be
found in Eth.Enoch 105:2 and Sib. 1:20.
In 2 Pet. epignosis is used in a similar theoretical, technical way in connection
with God’s call. Knowledge is here of the orthodox tradition, of the catholic
doctrinal teaching (2 Pet. 1:2, 3, 8; 2:20) which, as in the Pastorals, must become
effective in a corresponding manner of life. It is interesting that gndsis has a good
sense in 2 Pet. (cf. 1:5 f.; 3:18). This does not apply to ch. 2, where an anti-gnostic
writing (Jude) has been incorporated which uses only epignosis (2:20) and epigindsk6
(2:21).
(b) The controversies of early Christianity with gnosticism had a decisive
405
KNOWLEDGE
effect on many aspects of the church’s teaching and concepts. They partly explain
the development of the office of teacher (— Bishop) by which correct exegesis of
Scripture was to be guaranteed, and the fixing of the canon of Scripture so as to
exclude heretical writings from the church’s use. The drawing up of various creeds
finds its place here also. Gnostic influences continued for a long time to show their
influence on Church theology (for evidence of gnosticism in the early church see
W. Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts, I, Patristic Evidence, 1972).
E. D. Schmitz
ayvoém (agnoed), not know, be ignorant; dyvonua
(agnoéma), error; dyvola (agnoia), ignorance; ayvwota
(agnosia), lack of knowledge; dyvmatoc (agnostos), unknown.
aYVOEM
CL & OT agnoed means not to know and is used against the full background of the
Gk. concept of knowledge (— gindsko). It does not refer merely to something
not grasped by the mind, but can also mean make a mistake or be in error. In
Dan. 9:15 it is used beside hamartano, to sin. Similarly agnoéma (in the NT only
in Heb. 9:7) is used not merely for error but also for an offence done in ignorance.
agnoia similarly refers not only to the fact of not knowing, but can be used in a
general sense for ignorance or lack of education. The positive opposites are gnosis
(— ginosko) and sophia (~~ Wisdom). The Stoics considered ignorance to be the
root of all evil, and sometimes identified the two. In the Hellenistic terminology of
gnostic dualism agnosia was “‘lack of the knowledge essential to the salvation of
the soul, i.e., the knowledge about God, of the fate of the soul and of true direction
for life’ (R. Bultmann, TDNT I 118). If a man was living without knowledge, it
was either because he had not received the revelation or had refused it. Had he
received it, it would have freed him from his ignorance of his origin.
In legal settings agnoia means ignorance of the law; kat’ agnoian means un-
wittingly (e.g. Lev. 22:14). The LXX uses agnoia (mostly for Heb. ’a45am) con-
cretely in the sense of agnoéma, also meaning (unintentional) — guilt, offence, error,
generally (e.g. Lev. 5:18). agndstos, meaning both unknowable and unknown, is
found in the LXX, without Heb. equivalent, and Acts 17:23 (only here in the NT)
only in the latter sense.
NT agnoeo is found 21 times in NT (15 times in Paul), but agnoia only 4 times,
agnosia twice, agnoéma and agnostos each twice.
1. agnoeo occurs in the following senses:
(a) Not to understand in the sense of not being able to grasp (Mk. 9:32 and
Lk. 9:45, in each case of a passion prediction by Jesus).
(b) Not to know, not be informed (e.g. 2 Pet. 2:12, where the godless revile in
matters they do not know, about which they have not been informed); especially
in the phrase ou thelé hymas agnoein, “I do not want you to be ignorant’, 1.e.
uninformed (RSV sometimes “I want you to know’’) (Rom. 1:13; 11:25; 1 Cor.
10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:13), always with the address “brethren’’. The
implicit double negative is used by Paul to stress that he wishes to end his readers’
lack of knowledge by making them share in his knowledge. agnoeo is used also in
the formula é agnoeite, “or do you not know?” (Rom. 6:3; 7:1, “or”? omitted by
RSV) with the force of not knowing, or perhaps rather of failing to realize. In both
406
KNOWLEDGE
passages a present knowledge is presupposed which implies a need to respond to the
gospel. Almost all the passages cited above deal with a partial recognition of faith
in Christ, as the object of agnoed. It never means merely a lack of intellectual
knowledge which can be removed by a neutral statement of facts. It is used in the
OT sense. This lack of knowledge can be removed only by knowledge intimately
linked with an existential recognition and acceptance (cf. gindské CL and oT).
(c) An ignorance that leads astray. In | Tim. 1:13 Paul, looking back on his
past, says, “I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief.’ Ignorance
is here the trait that marked out his life that had gone astray until his > conversion
to the Christian faith which always includes knowledge. The same shade of meaning
is found in Heb. 5:2, “ignorant and wayward’. OT language is here used, contrast-
ing unknowing, unintentional — sins with deliberate ones. In the context, the
meaning of agnoed is expanded from unknowing to undesired, so that it comes to
denote the sins for which there is atonement in contrast to those for which there is
none.
(d) A failure to know in the sense of a disobedient closing of the mind to the
revealing word of God (Acts 13:27; Rom. 10:3). This is not simply a lack of
knowledge, but “‘a false understanding, a false path in knowing and thinking”
(O. Michel Der Brief an die Romer, KEK 4, 19665, on Rom. 10:3). Ignorance and
disobedience are here used as parallels; ignorance is the guilty turning away from
the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The guilty ignorance of the Jews cannot be
conquered by introspection or some kind of self-reformation. It can only be dealt
with by God himself as he forgives and reveals himself in the gospel. This is not
merely an erring ignorance (see above (c)). It reflects the OT link between knowledge
and right conduct (and correspondingly between wilful rejection of knowledge
and judgment). (On the consequent hardening of Israel — Hard.)
1 Cor. 14:38 should probably be included in this connection: “‘If anyone does
not recognize [agnoei], he 1s not recognized [agnoeitai].” The second half of the
verse speaks of God’s recognition. For Paul is claiming to speak by “a command
of the Lord”’ (v. 37). Hence, to reject the command Is to reject God with the implied
corollary that this involves non-recognition by not only Paul but by God himself.
(e) To be unknown. In 2 Cor. 6:9 Paul says that he is ““unknown’”’, 1.e. to the
world, for he is not included among its great ones. On the other hand, he was
well known to God and the church. See also Gal. 1:22.
2. (a) In Acts 3:17 agnoia is used in the juridical sense of the LXX. The guilt
of the Jews is, from the viewpoint of the subject, a sin arising from ignorance. On
the other hand, the Stoic-Jewish sense is found in the other cases of its use, among
them being some which betray gnostic usage (— gindsko). Acts 17:30 refers to
past heathenism as ignorance (cf. Acts 14:16; Rom. 3:25). The history of mankind
is from the point of view of salvation divided into two periods; before and after
Christ. The period before the decisive and basic revelation of God in Christ is
characterized by the ignorance which prevailed. “The times of ignorance God
overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent.”’
(b) agnostos in Acts 17:23 means simply unknown in the inscription “‘To an
unknown God” on an altar at Athens. Paul addressed the Athenians as those who
had until then honoured the unknown God without knowledge, but whom he
was now proclaiming as the revealed One. The unknown God among the gods is in
407
KNOWLEDGE
fact the true and only One. He is the God of the OT and of salvation-history.
The mention of ignorance was not intended to justify and excuse men; it was to
introduce them to God’s saving purposes and to lead them to the joy of repentance.
(On the inscription see F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1952?, 335 f.; and
E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 516, 520 ff.; — God, art. theos NT 1
(d), 4 (b)). E. Schiitz
— God, — Light, ~ Myth, ~ Reason, — Revelation, —> Secret, — Truth, —
Wisdom
On knowledge and experience in general:
(a). G. Bornkamm, ‘‘The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1-3)’, in Early Christian Ex-
perience, 1969, 47-70; E. Brunner, Truth as Encounter: A New Edition, Much Enlarged, of The
Divine-Human Encounter, 1964; R. Bultmann, agnoed etc., TDNT JI 115-21; and ginoské etc.,
TDNT I 689-719; W. D. Davies, ‘“ ‘Knowledge’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11 :25-30’’,
HTR 46, 1953, 113-39, reprinted in Christian Origins and Judaism, 1962, 119-44; C. H. Dodd,
“Knowledge of God”, in The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 151-69; G. Delling,
aisthanomai etc., TDNT J 187 f.; E. E. Ellis, “‘ ‘Wisdom’ and ‘Knowledge’ in I Corinthians”, TB
25, 1974, 82-98; B. Gartner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, 1955; J. B. Lightfoot,
The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, 1879, 137f.; J. A. Robinson, St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Ephesians, 1904, 249 ff.; cf. the comments on Lightfoot and Robinson by R. E.
Picirilli, “The Meaning of ‘Epignosis’”’, EQ 47, 1975, 88 ff.; B. Reicke, ‘“‘Da‘at and Gnosis in
Intertestamental Literature”, in E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox, eds., Neotestamentica et Semitica:
Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, 1969, 245-55; N. B. Stonehouse, Paul before the Areopagus
and Other New Testament Studies, 1957; H. Zimmermann, ‘“‘“Knowledge of God’’, EBT II 472-78.
(b). E. Baumann, “‘ydda‘ und seine Derivate’’, ZAW 28, 1908, 22 ff., 110 ff.; and ‘‘ ‘Wissen um
Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform der Theologie?’’, EvTh 15, 1955, 416 ff.; G. J. Botterweck, “‘Gott
erkennen” im Sprachgebrauch des Alten Testaments, Bonner Biblische Beitrdge 2, 1951; A. Fri-
drichsen, ‘‘Gnosis: Et Bidrag til Belysning ave den Paulinske Terminologi og Erkjennelsesteori’’,
Festschrift E. Lahmann, 1927, 85-109; F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament,
BZAW 74, 1955; K. Niederwimmer, Der Begriff der Freiheit im Neuen Testament, 1966; E. Norden,
Agnostos Theos, (1913) 19715; F. Nétscher, Zur theologischen Terminologie der Qumran-Texte,
1956, 15-79; R. Prenter, Connaitre Christ, 1966; E. Prucker, Gnosis Theou. Untersuchungen zur
Bedeutung eines religidsen Begriffs beim Apostel und bei seiner Umwelt, 1937; H. Schlier, ‘“‘Gnosis’’,
in Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe, 1, 1962, 562 ff.; W. Schottroff, yada‘, THAT I 682-701;
Die Ausdriicke fiir den Begriff des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie, Philologische Unter-
suchungen, 29, 1924; and Platon, Mit den Augen des Geistes, 1955; H. W. Wolff, “‘ ‘Wissen um
Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie’”’, EvTh 12, 1952-53, 533 ff.; and ‘‘Erkenntnis Gottes
im Alten Testament”, EvTh 15, 1955, 426 ff.; W. Zimmerli, Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buch
Ezechiel, AThANT 27, 1954.
Works on gnosticism and its bearing on the NT:
(a). A complete critical edition of the Nag Hammadi codices and Codex Berolinensis 8502 is
under preparation in The Coptic Gnostic Library, published under the auspices of The Institute for
Antiquity and Christianity. Other editions of texts and discussions include: C. K. Barrett, ‘“The
Theological Vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel and the Gospel of Truth’’, in W. Klassen and G. F.
Snyder, eds., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper,
1962, 210-23; W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, 1971; F. H. Borsch, The
Christian and Gnostic Son of Man ,1970; R. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary
Setting, 1956; and The Gospel of John, 1971; F. C. Burkitt, Church and Gnosis, 1932; R. P. Casey,
“Gnosis, Gnosticism and the New Testament’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., The Back-
ground of the New Testament and its Eschatology. In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1956, 52-80;
H. Chadwick, “‘Gnosticism’’, OCD, 470 f.; F. L. Cross, ed., The Jung Codex: A Newly Recovered
Gnostic Papyrus, 1955; J. Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction
to the Gnostic Coptic Manuscripts discovered at Chenoboskion; With an English Translation and
Critical Evaluation of the Gospel according to Thomas, 1960; J. W. Drane, ‘‘Gnosticism and the
New Testament 1”, Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 68, 1974, 6-13; “‘Gnosticism and the
408
KNOWLEDGE
New Testament 2”, ibid. 69, 1974, 1-7; E. S. Drower, ‘““A Mandaean Bibliography’’, Journal of
the Royal Asiatic Society, 1953, 34-39; W. Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts, I,
Patristic Evidence, 1972; II, Coptic and Mandaic Sources, 1974; B. Gartner, The Theology of the
Gospel of Thomas, 1961; R. M. Grant, Gnosticism: An Anthology, 1961; and Gnosticism and Early
Christianity, 19667; R. M. Grant and D. N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, With an
English Translation of the Gospel of Thomas, 1960; K. Grobel, The Gospel of Truth: A Valentinian
Meditation on the Gospel, 1960; R. Haardt, Gnosis: Character and Testimony, 1971; E. Hennecke
and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, I-II 1963-65; R. A. Johnson, The
Origins of Demythologizing: Philosophy and Historiography in the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann,
Supplements to Numen 28, 1974; H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and
the Beginnings of Christianity, 19632; R. Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic,
1965; H. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas and the Evangelists, 1962; J. Munck, ‘‘The
New Testament and Gnosticism’’, in W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder, eds., op. cit., 224-38; A. D.
Nock, ‘‘Gnosticism’, HTR 57, 1964, 255-79 (reprinted in Essays on Religion and the Ancient
World, II, 1972, 940 ff.); E. H. Pagels, The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters,
1975; M. L. Peel, The Epistle to Rheginos: A Valentinian Letter on the Resurrection, 1969; H. C.
Puech, ‘“‘Gnosis and Time”’, Papers from Eranos Yearbooks, Man and Time, 1958; G. Quispel,
“Gnosis”, Vox Theologica, 39, 1969, 27~35; and “‘Gnosticism and the New Testament’’, in J. P.
Hyatt, ed., The Bible in Modern Scholarship, 1965, 252-71; with responses by R. Mc. L. Wilson
and H. Jonas, op. cit., 272-93; B. Reicke, ‘““Traces of Gnosticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls?’ NTS
1, 1954—55, 137-41; A. Richardson, “‘Gnosis and Revelation in the Bible and in Contemporary
Thought’, S/T 9, 1956, 31-45; W. Schmithals, Paul and James, SBT 46, 1963; Gnosticism in
Corinth, 1971; and Paul and the Gnostics, 1972; R. Schnackenburg, ““The Gnostic Myth of the
Redeemer and the Johannine Christology’, The Gospel according to St. John, I, 1968, 543-57;
W. C. van Unnik, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings: A Preliminary Survey of the Nag Hammadi
Find, 1960; E. Voegelin, ‘“‘History and Gnosis’’, in B. W. Anderson, ed., The Old Testament and
Christian Faith, 1964, 64-89; R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, 1958; Studies in the Gospel of
Thomas, 1960; The Gospel of Philip, 1962; ‘“‘Gnostics — in Galatia?’”’, StudEv, IV 1, 1968, 358-67;
Gnosis and the New Testament, 1968; E. M. Yamauchi, Mandaic Incantation Texts, 1967; ‘““The
Present Status of Mandaean Studies”, JNES 25, 1966, 88-96; Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean
Origins, 1970; and Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences, 1973.
(b). U. Bianchi, ed., Le Origini dello Gnosticismo, Colloquio di Messina 13-18 Aprile 1966, Studies
in the History of Religions (Supplements to Numen) 12, 1967; A. Bohlig, Mysterion und Wahrheit.
Gesammelte Beitrage zur spatantiken Religionsgeschichte, 1968; W. Bousset, “‘Gnosis”, Pauly-
Wissowa VII 1502 ff.; and ““Gnostiker’’, ibid., 1534 ff.; L. Cerfaux, ‘“‘De Saint Paul a |’Evangile
de la Verité”’, NTS 5, 1958-59, 103-12; J. Dupont, Gnosis: La Connaissance Religieuse dans les
Epitres de Saint Paul, 1949; W. Eltester, ed., Christentum und Gnosis, BZNW 37, 1969; E. de
Faye, Gnostiques et Gnosticisme, 19257; A.-J. Festugiere, La Révélation d’ Hermés Trismégiste, I-IV,
1949-54; D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief, 1964; H. Jonas, Gnosis und
spatantiker Geist, 1, Die mythologische Gnosis (1934) 1964, II, Von der Mythologie zur mystischen
Philosophie, 1954; J. Krull, Die Lehre des Hermes Trismegistos, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philo-
sophie des Mittelalters, 12, 1914; H. Leisegang, Die Gnosis, 19554; G. Quispel, Gnosis als Weltre-
ligion, 1951; R. Reitzenstein, Das mandaische Buch des Herrn der Grosse und die Evangelieniiber-
lieferung, 1919; Poimandres (1904) 1966; Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen 1927; and Die
Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (1929) 1967; K. Rudolf, Die Mandder, I-I], 1960-61; K.
Rudolf, ed., Gnosis und Gnostizismus, 1975; K.-W. Trodger, ed., Gnosis und Neues Testament.
Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, 1973.
SS
409
Lamb, Sheep
In the ancient world sheep together with other small livestock were kept in herds,
and for that reason are usually referred to in the plural. The word probaton, which
is relatively frequent in the NT, was originally a generic term for all four-legged
animals, especially tame domestic animals, only later was it restricted to sheep.
amnos denoted from the outset a young sheep, frequently a one-year-old lamb,
especially as used for sacrifice on numerous cultic occasions. In non-sacrificial
contexts, the lamb as an animal for slaughter was called arén. The diminutive form
arnion originally meant lambkin, but later simply a lamb. In a figurative theological
context (especially in Matt. and Jn.) Israel and the Christian church are often
referred to as sheep (probata), and occasionally (in Jn. and | Pet.) Jesus is likened
to a lamb, amnos (in Jn.), arnion (in Rev.).
[dws poe (amnos), lamb; apnv (arén), lamb; apviov (arnion),
CL amnos, found infrequently from Sophocles and Aristophanes onwards,
denotes a lamb as distinct from — probaton, sheep. In the LXX both amnos and
aren are used, while arnion is no longer felt to be a diminutive, either in the LXX or
in the NT.
oT In the OT amnos (Hebrew kebes) is used chiefly in passages classed among the
Priestly writings and in Ezek., i.e. in writings of a cultic and sacrificial character.
The lamb plays an important role as a sacrificial animal in Israel’s public worship.
Lambs are presented as burnt offerings and sacrifices (Lev. 9:3, Num. 15:5) to
atone for and to cleanse the people as a whole or individual persons (e.g. — lepers,
Lev. 14:10) at the sanctuary. According to Exod. 12:5, at the yearly Passover —
feast each family consumed a lamb that was without blemish, a male a year old,
in memory of the exodus from Egypt. (At the exodus itself the blood of the lamb
was smeared upon the door-posts and lintels of Jewish houses [Exod. 12:7, 13, 23].)
In his prophecy of the new temple Ezek. mentions lambs as gifts for the — Sabbath-
offering and the feast-offering (46:4, 11). Isa. 53:7 is particularly illuminating:
the patiently suffering —> Servant of the Lord is compared with a lamb being led
to the slaughter and remaining dumb before its shearers. Here for the first time a
person is spoken of as fulfilling the function of a sacrificial animal. Acts 8:32 cites
Isa. 53:7, and sees in the passage a reference to the “good news of Jesus’’ (Acts
8:35).
410
LAMB
NT |. Inthe NT Jesus is described 4 times as amnos (Jn. 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; | Pet.
1:19). In Jn. 1:29, 36 John the Baptist describes Jesus, whom he has baptized, as
ho amnos tou theou, “‘the lamb of God’’. This is not merely a comparison in which
Jesus is said to be like a lamb; rather he is the lamb of God. Both Acts 8:32 and
1 Pet. 1:19 contain Ads (as), but this is not true of Jn. 1:29, 36. J. Jeremias (TDNT
I 339) suggests that this phrase may have been borrowed from Isa. 53, and also
from the Passover lamb idea. He points out that the Aramaic word ta/yd@’ means
both lamb and boy, servant, and says that the meaning “‘servant”’ makes the genitive
intelligible: Jesus, the servant of God. Then this led eventually to the possible (but
most likely not the original) translation amnos tou theou.
Interesting and thought-provoking as this is, it is preferable to understand
this unusual genitive construction in the light of the relative clause ho airdn tén
hamartian tou kosmou (‘‘that takes away the sin of the world’’) and to link this with
Isa. 53: the lamb (of God) bears the sin of the world. (For interpretation of the
Servant see H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays, 19652.)
If ‘‘lamb”’ stands for “‘offering’’, then the Baptist’s statement becomes clear. No
offerings brought by men can take away the sin of the world. But God himself
provides an offering, which does indeed take it away. He gave his only Son and did
not spare him (cf. Rom. 8:31-—32, probably an echo of Gen. 22). There is a con-
siderable contrast between the Baptist’s words in Jn. 1:29 and those in the Synoptic
Gospels, where messiah ts said to be coming with his fan in his hand, sweeping his
threshing floor (Matt. 3:12; Lk. 3:17). Jn. 1:29, however, is to be seen against the
background of Jesus’ baptism (1 :32—34), when he publicly identified himself with
sinners and their lot. Once God has delivered up his Son to death the eschato-
logical time of salvation can be said to have begun.
In the NT Jesus is described as a lamb in three different respects: (a) Acts 8:32
stresses his patient suffering; (b) 1 Pet. 1:19 emphasizes the sinlessness and perfec-
tion of his sacrifice by the phrase “without blemish and without spot’’; (c) Jn.
1:29, 36 describe the atoning power of his death: he bears, i.e. wipes out, the sin
of the world (cf. J. Jeremias, 7DNT I 340).
2. arén occurs once in the NT in Lk. 10:3, where it is said that the disciples will
be as defenceless as sheep among wolves (— Animal).
3. arnion. In Jn. 21:15 Christ exhorts Peter: ‘‘Feed my lambs [boske ta arnia
mou]. ““The church belongs to Christ, and needs faithful pastoral oversight by his
disciple (cf. Augustine: ‘“‘Feed my sheep as mine and not as yours [oves meas pasce
sicut meas, non sicut tuas|” (Tractatus in Ioannis Evangelium 123). Apart from Jn.
21:15, arnion is found exclusively in Rev. (27 times). It is important to note the
observation by J. Jeremias (TDNT I 340) that by the NT period this word was no
longer thought of as a diminutive. There is therefore no biblical basis for referring
to Christ as a “lambkin’’, however endearing the idea may be. The thought is
rather that the judge of all the earth is he who died for us, and even as sovereign
Lord he still bears the marks of his passion (Rev. 5:6).
arnion occurs 4 times in Rev. 5 (wv. 6, 8, 12 f.), where Christ is seen in this two-
fold aspect. On the one hand, he is the Lord, the one who opens the seals and who
is to be worshipped. On the other hand, he is esphagmenon arnion (‘‘a lamb that
was Slain’’) having redeemed men of all races to God by his — blood, and made
them — kings and —> priests (Rev. 5:9, 10). He is both arnion and leén, a lion (—
411
LAMB
Animal). The eschatological wrath from which kings, rulers, freemen and slaves
all wish to hide is orgé tou arniou, “the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16). In ch. 7 it is
said that the blood of the Lamb has cleansing power. The robes of the martyrs were
cleansed not by their martyrdom, severe as it was, but solely by the blood of the
Lamb. The Lamb is worshipped at the same time as God (7:10). Rev. 19:7, 9
speaks of the marriage of the Lamb, the church being the bride. The 12 apostles
are called apostles of the Lamb. God and the Lamb illumine the city of God
(21:14, 23).
4. In summary it can be said that amnos tou theou denotes God’s offering, Christ,
whom he destined to bear the sin of the world, while arnion emphasizes the fact
that he who is eternal Lord is also Christ crucified for us. J. Gess
| 7 popatov | 1 popatov (probaton), sheep.
cL In Gk. antiquity the word probaton in its widest sense denoted all four-
footed animals (especially tame, domestic ones) as opposed to swimming and
creeping animals. It is possible that the word derives from the vb. pro-baino, to go
before. In mixed herds it was the small livestock (especially the sheep) which, being
weaker than the other animals, went ahead of them. At first the word was used
only in the plur. (i.e. of a flock or herd), but later the sing. use appeared, meaning
specifically a sheep. Aristophanes (Nudes, 1203) uses it metaphorically as a term of
abuse: anything inferior or stupid (e.g. a simpleton) is likened to a sheep. It can
also have a positive sense, however, being used as a metaphor for a person who
needs to be guided by someone else (Epictetus, Dissertationes, 3, 22, 35).
oT As a translation of Heb. s6’n (small livestock) probaton in the OT means pri-
marily the sheep as a useful and gregarious animal (Gen. 30:38, Isa. 7:21;
Amos 7:15), and less as a sacrifice (Lev. 1:2; for this the more frequent word is >
amnos, Heb. kebes, the lamb available for sacrifice). probaton (almost exclusively in
the plur. probata) is used metaphorically for “the people’ (under the king as
poimeén, — shepherd; 2 Sam. 24:17), especially God’s people (Ps. 74:1, the congre-
gation; 77:20; 78:52). The essential point here is the sheep’s need of protection.
Without the shepherd’s guidance the flock 1s scattered (Ezek. 34:5, 6); each sheep
goes its own way (Isa. 53:6); the sheep wander about and fall victims to the dangers
of the wilderness (Ezek. 34:5 f.); they must be guided by a skilful shepherd to the
right pastures if they are to survive (Ps. 23). Hence, the people of Israel in the
wilderness, and without a leader, are like “‘sheep which have no shepherd’? (Num.
27:17). The individual also, without God’s guidance, “‘goes astray like a lost sheep”’
(Ps. 119:176). Yahweh himself provides for his scattered flock by appointing
shepherds such as the messianic king (Jer. 23:1 ff.; Ezek. 34:23), or —- Moses (Ps.
77:20; Isa. 63:11), or by himself acting as the shepherd of his people (Ps. 78:52 f.;
80:1; Isa. 40:11). By repeatedly calling themselves God’s sheep, therefore, the
people of Israel were acknowledging first that, left to themselves, they were de-
fenceless, and secondly that they were trusting in the guidance of their own good
shepherd, Yahweh himself (Ps. 23; 95:7; 100:3).
412
LAMB
NT In the NT probaton is remarkably frequent in Matt. (11 times) and in Jn (17
times), compared with the other books.
1. From the use which Jesus makes of sheep in his parables and teaching, it is
clear that his contemporaries understood very well how utterly lost a sheep was if
left to itself without a shepherd’s care (Lk. 15:4). They knew that a sheep’s great
need was loving, unselfish protection (Matt. 12:11; Lk. 15:4), and this basic fact
lies behind Christ’s use of the metaphor. A sheep without a shepherd is “‘harassed
and helpless’? (Matt. 9:36), it “‘strays’’ (1 Pet. 2:25) and is ‘“‘lost’? (Matt. 10:6;
15:24). In following OT usage and likening his people to a flock of sheep without a
shepherd (Mk. 6:34; cf. Num. 27:17; 1 Ki. 22:17), Jesus draws attention to the
fact that they are heading for certain destruction, unless deliverance is forthcoming.
In the same way Christians in | Pet. are reminded that before their conversion they
were ‘‘straying like sheep” (1 Pet. 2:25), i.e. hopelessly lost and at the mercy of false
shepherds (cf. Ezek. 34:5). But Jesus is “the great shepherd of the sheep” (Heb.
13:20), who is sent first of all to “‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’’ (Matt.
15:24). |
2. On the other hand, the term “‘sheep”’ is applied in Matt. to the exclusive band
of disciples gathered by Jesus. In sending them forth to preach (10:16; cf.
arnas, lambs, Lk. 10:3), Jesus likens them to defenceless sheep sent by the shep-
herd into the midst of ferocious wolves, i.e. the church of the last days is under the
constant threat of dispersal by its enemies (Matt. 26:31 par. Mk. 14:27). This
quotation applies to Jesus and the disciples the prophecy of Zech. 13:7 which
reads in the MT: “Strike the shepherd and the flock [sé’n] will be scattered,” and
in the LXX “Strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep [probata].’’ It is interpreted
christologically in the Gospels, with the implication that Jesus’ followers are the
true Israel and that it is God who will smite Jesus. The context of Zech. suggests
that it is a judgment on the shepherd. The “‘sheep” who consciously or unconsci-
ously have done the will of God will not be finally separated from the goats until
the shepherd himself separates them at the great day of judgment (Matt. 25:32 f.).
3. Whereas in Matt. the thought is more of the flock being gathered from among
the lost sheep of the people of Israel (10:6; 15:24), in Jn. probaton denotes Christ’s
elect people, “his own” (10:14). The sheep know the — voice of their shepherd,
hear his call and follow him. As the good shepherd, Jesus knows his sheep, calls
them, guards them from the wolf and lays down his life for them (Jn. 10:1-11).
Whereas in Matt. the relation between shepherd and flock is that of king to the
people of God, in Jn. the shepherd is the Son who comes forth from God in order to
reveal him, while the flock is the church listening to his voice. When there is “‘one
flock and one shepherd” (Jn. 10:16; cf. 17:20 f.), 1.e. when at last Jews and Gentiles
are gathered into one church under one Lord, then the purpose of Christ’s saving
work is achieved.
4. Asin the OT, probaton hardly ever means a sacrificial animal (only in Jn. 2:14;
Acts 8:32; Rom. 8:36), this idea being expressed in the NT mainly by the words —
amnos and arnion, especially as metaphors for Christ in his vicarious suffering and
sovereign power. R. Tuente
—> Animal, — Servant, — Shepherd
(a). C. K. Barrett, “The Lamb of God’’, NTS 1, 1955-56, 210 ff.; J. B. Bauer, ““Lamb of God”’,
EBT II 478 f.; J. Blenkinsopp, ““The Lamb of God’’, Clergy Review, 50, 1965, 868-72; G. S.
413
LAMB/LAME
Cansdale, Animals of Bible Lands, 1970; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953,
230-38; J. D’Souza, The Lamb of God in Johannine Writings, 1968; G. Florovsky, ‘‘The Lamb of
God’, SJT 4, 1951, 13-28; A. T. Hanson, The Wrath of the Lamb, 1957; N. Hillyer, ‘‘ ‘The Lamb’
in the Apocalypse”, EQ 39, 1967, 228-36; J. Jeremias, amnos etc., TDNT I 338-41; E. E. May,
Ecce Agnus Det: A Philological and Exegetical Approach to John 1: 29-36, 1947; L. Morris, The
Gospel According to John, 1971, 143 ff.; H. Preisker and S. Schulz, probaton etc., TDNT VI 689-92;
E. M. Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel in the Light of First Century Thought, 1961;
J. G. S. S. Thomson, ‘‘The Shepherd-Ruler Concept in the OT and its Application in the NT’’,
SJT 8, 1955, 406-18; W. Tooley, ‘““The Shepherd and the Sheep Image in the Teaching of Jesus’’,
NovT 7, 1964-65, 15 ff.; S. Virgulin, “‘Recent Discussion on the ‘Lamb of God’ ”’, Scripture 13,
1961, 74-80.
(b.) C. Burchard, “‘Das Lamm in der Waagschale’’, ZNW 57, 1966, 219 ff.; F. Gryglewicz, ‘“‘Das
Lamm Gottes’”’, NTS 13, 1966-67, 133-46; T. Holtz, Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes,
TU 85, 1962; J. Jeremias, ‘Das Lamm, das aus der Jungfrau hervorging (Test.Jos. 19, 8)’, ZNW
57, 1966, 216 ff.; K. Koch, ‘Das Lamm, das Agypten vernichtet. Ein Fragment aus Jannes und
Jambres und sein geschichtlicher Hintergrund’’, ZNW 57, 1966, 79 ff.
Lame, Crippled
These two words are closely related functionally in popular usage. A cripple is
generally understood to be someone deprived of the use of a limb or a member of
the body, or one who is partially disabled and thus lacks the natural functions of a
limb. While a lame person is also disabled, the particular area affected is thought of
in terms of the legs. Hence one who is lame moves about with some difficulty,
perhaps walking with a limp, and may well experience pain in the process.
KVAAOG KvAAdc (kyllos), crooked, crippled, maimed.
CL In Greek medical authors kyllos was used of crooked or disabled legs, feet and
ears, though properly of legs bent outwards by diseases such as rickets or
disabled through badly reduced fractures or other forms of surgical accident.
This contrasted with the condition described in Hippocrates and some non-medical
authors as blaisos, in which the legs bent in at the knees (genu varum) and the feet
splayed out somewhat. The background of kyllos was predominantly medical, but
occasionally the term was used metaphorically.
oT Being of a rather rare and technical nature, the word kyllos did not occur in the
LXX or other Gk. versions of the OT or Apocrypha. Similarly there is no
single Heb. word for cripple, the closest being the late Heb. adj. ’ittér, hampered,
impeded (which in biblical Heb. is followed by yad y°miné, “his right hand’’, and
means impeded on the right side, and so “‘left-handed’’, Jdg. 3:15; 20:16), and
nakeh, smitten, afflicted, without further specification as to the nature of the
disability (2 Sam. 4:4; 9:3; and fig. in Isa. 66:2).
NT kyllos is a comparatively rare word in NT usage, occurring 4 times only. In
Matt. 15:30 f. the RSV reads ‘“‘maimed” (NEB “‘crippled’’), following the AV,
RV, as also in Matt. 18:8 and Mk. 9:43. The NEB has “‘maimed”’ in the latter two
references. The Matthean passages do not indicate the type of disability, suggesting
that the persons involved may have included the congenitally afflicted as well as
414
LAME
those who had sustained crippling accidents. In Matt. 18:8 and Mk. 9:43 the
reference is more specific, describing the voluntary amputation of a hand as a
means of forestalling sin from a source which was already jeopardising entry to
eternal life. The severing of the hand at the wrist was an ancient oriental method of
punishing thieves, and is still practised today in parts of the east. The use of kyllos
to describe a maimed or crippled hand is a comparatively late development in both
the classical and medical authors. R. K. Harrison
| ywidc (chélos), lame, halt, maimed; zapadvtixdc
yore (paralytikos), paralytic.
CL The classical writers from Homer onwards employed chdlos to describe a lame
condition in the legs or feet which produced a halting or limping gait. At a
later period the word came to be used, like kyllos, to designate a deformed or
impaired condition of the hand, as in Hippocrates and others. In the Greek papyri
it was used in both the literal and metaphorical sense of lameness.
oT The word chdlos occurred in the LXX as the equivalent of the Heb. pisséah,
lame with respect to the feet (as in 2 Sam. 9:13; 19:27). Whether congenital or
acquired, this condition disqualified a man from holding office as a — priest in
—> Israel (Lev. 21:18). This prohibition formed part of the concept of — holiness
for the nation, and was especially important for those participating in the sanc-
tuary rituals, of whom a high standard was required. The basic postulate was
that whatever approached, or was offered up to, God must be perfect, so that
priests had to be free from both ceremonial impurity and physical defects (Lev.
21:1 ff.; Deut. 15:21). In the same way sacrifices must be without blemish (Lev.
22:19 ff.), to symbolize the offering of the very best of human productivity to God.
Otherwise punishment would result (cf. Mal. 1:7 ff.). The term pisséah is com-
paratively rare in the OT, occurring only about a dozen times. In Isa. 33:23 and
35:6 the lame are mentioned in connection with the promised future. See also 2 Sam.
5:6, 8f.; 9:13; 19:27(26); Job 29:15.
NT With the meaning of lame or maimed, chdlos occurs 14 times in the NT. In
Matt. 11:5; 15:30 f.; 18:8; Mk. 9:45; Lk. 7:22; Acts 3:2; 14:8; Heb. 12:13,
the reference is either implicitly or explicitly to impairment of the legs and feet,
Acts 3:7 mentioning specifically the feet (baseis) and ankles (sphyra), two terms
which do not occur elsewhere in the NT. Of a more indeterminate nature is the
use of chélos in Matt. 21:14; Lk. 14:13, 21; Jn. 5:3 and Acts 8:7. In the NT the
lame, maimed or crippled were invariably regarded as among the underprivileged
members of society, and therefore as objects of charity, whether of a secular (cf.
Lk. 14:13) or Christian (cf. Acts 3:2 ff.) nature.
The adj. used as a noun, paralytikos, lame person, paralytic, occurs in Matt.
4:24; 8:6;9:2,6; Mk. 2:3-5, 9 f.; Lk. 5:24 .1.; Jn. 5:3 v.l. The synonym paralytos
is found only at Mk. 2:9 v.1. R. K. Harrison
—> Blind, — Body, —> Deaf, —- Heal, — Leper, —- Weakness
Arndt, 458, 625, 897; Liddell-Scott, 1008 f., 1317, 2014; and bibliography under — Heal.
415
LAMENT
Lament, Sorrow, Weep, Groan
Laughter and tears, and — joy and sorrow belong together as elements of human
emotion. Sorrow may manifest itself in weeping, or other outward demonstra-
tions of grief or remain concealed as inner anguish. In Gk. several verbs are used
to express this range of emotions. k/aid, weep, cry out, expresses man’s immediate
and outward reaction to suffering. kopto stresses the aspect of public grief, which
can manifest itself in various customs such as smiting the breast, cutting oneself,
wailing or singing set funeral dirges (cf. also thréned, wail, sing a lament or dirge;
penthed, mourn, lament). /yped covers the widest range from physical pain to
inward grief; in general it means in the active to give pain, and in the passive to be
grieved. Also examined here are brychd, gnash; penthed, mourn; and stenazo,
groan.
KAaiw KAaiw (klaio), weep; KAavOpudc (klauthmos), weeping.
CL 1. klaié, found from Homer onwards, means intrans. to cry aloud, weep; trans.
bewail. In secular Gk. klaid does not express remorse or sorrow, but physical
or mental pain which is outwardly visible.
oT In the LXX klaio is used mostly as the translation of bakdh, weep, cry aloud.
It expresses profound grief (1 Sam. 1:7; Lam. 1:16), and also deep sorrow in
mourning for the dead (Gen. 50:1). But it may equally express supreme joy, as at
the meeting of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 46:29). The whole personality is involved,
as it is in the case of a crying child (Gen. 21:16; Exod. 2:6). A Greek might bewail
his personal fate or that of his people, but in the OT the thought is rather that of
expressing dependence on God, by addressing one’s cries or complaints to him in
prayer (e.g. Samson in Jdg. 15:18; 16:28; cf. Isa. 30:19). A further OT feature is
the cultic lamentation of the whole people before Yahweh, usually accompanied
by a general fast (Jdg. 20:23, 26), such occasions providing the Sitz im Leben
for such songs of national lamentation as Pss. 74; 79; 80.
The noun klauthmos stands most frequently for the Heb. b*k?, the nominal form
of bakah (weep). b°ki is the most common word in Heb. for weeping (e.g. Gen.
45:2; Deut. 34:8; Jdg. 2:2; Isa. 15:2f.). It stands for the participial form of
bakah in Job 30:31; Isa. 30:19 and Jer. 22:10. In Mic. 7:4 klauthmos represents
the Heb. m*bukdah from the root bé6k which basically means to confuse. It is possible
that the translators of the LXX understood the word as a derivation of bakah.
NT 1. klaié is similarly used in the NT, i.e. to express violent emotion, e.g. at
parting (Acts 21:13), when thinking of the enemies of Christ (Phil. 3:18), when
facing dying and death (Mk. 5:38; Lk. 7:13, 32; Jn. 11:31, 33; Acts 9:39), or
generally when face to face with affliction (Rom. 12:15; 1 Cor. 7:30). On the other
hand, tears of joy are not mentioned in the NT.
2. In the third Beatitude of Lk. hoi klaiontes nyn, ‘“‘those that weep now” (6:21),
are contrasted with those who are rich and full, who laugh now and of whom all
men speak well (6:25 f.). The latter are self-righteous, pharisaical persons, “who
need no repentance”’ (15:7), who think highly of themselves, going through life
full of self-assurance and with no sense of guilt. ““Those that weep now’’, on the
416
LAMENT
other hand, live humbly in complete dependence upon God, since they are con-
scious of their guilt (Matt. 26:75; Lk. 7:38) and therefore acknowledge that God’s
assessment of them is just, as did the tax collector in the temple. Christ’s promise
to them is: “You shall laugh.” His disciples’ weeping over their guilt and the
sufferings of this present time will give way, at the end of time, to the laughter of
the children of the kingdom.
3. By contrast, those who laugh now are warned: penthésete kai klausete, ‘“‘you
shall mourn and weep” (Lk. 6:25). Where klaio has a future reference in the NT,
it is connected with warnings of disaster: those who now are godless and scornful
will be put to shame in the final judgment. To intensify the severity of these state-
ments klaiod is sometimes combined with another vb. of mourning: penthésete kai
klausete (“‘you shall mourn and weep’’, Lk. 6:25; cf. Jas. 4:9); klausete kai thréneé-
sete hymeis (“you will weep and lament’’, Jn. 16:20); Alausousin kai kopsontai
(“‘[they] will weep and wail’’, Rev. 18:9).
4. In order to avoid lamentation in the future which will be too late, James
exhorts his readers to weep now. “Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your
laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to dejection. Humble yourselves
before the Lord and he will exalt you” (Jas. 4:9 f.). Perhaps James is recalling the
words of Jesus in Lk. 6:25 (cf. C. L. Mitton, The Epistle of James, 1966, 162).
5. The noun klauthmos, weeping, occurs frequently in the NT in the expression
“weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (— brycho below). In this instance the word
describes the remorse associated with the — judgment, particularly among the
Jews who had rejected their opportunity. In Matt. 2:18 klauthmos (v.l. thrénos,
dirge) is associated with odyrmos polys (“loud lamentation’’) in the quotation from
Jer. 31:15 which is seen as being fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocents at
Bethlehem (— Fulfil, art. pléro0). H. Haarbeck
a 5 Kont@ (kopto), strike; xéntopal (koptomai), beat the
| oe | breast; Kometoc (kopetos), mourning, lamentation.
CL The word is found in this sense from Homer’s //iad onwards. It has a derivative:
kopetos, lamentation for the dead. thrénos is used similarly in Ion. and Att. in
the sense of a lament or dirge, the vb. thréned, to wail, bewail, being derived from
it. There is widespread evidence from antiquity for public mourning and lamenta-
tion for the dead. Smiting on the breast and cheeks, loud wailing or dirge-singing
were originally intended to drive away the spirits of the dead or to honour the
dead. Various mourning customs, some of them violent, extend into the Hellenistic
period. Originally carried out on behalf of the dead, they later became increasingly
a general expression of grief at death.
oT 1. Inthe OT there are numerous parallels to the burial customs of the surround-
ing world. The LXX translates Heb. sadpad, make lamentation, by koptomai
(e.g. Gen. 23:2; 1 Ki. 25:1; 28:3; Jer. 16:5 f.).
The Israelites had a variety of customs associated with mourning for the dead
(Gen. 23:1-2; 37:34-35; 2 Sam. 3:31-34): cutting oneself, shaving off one’s hair,
eating mourning bread, drinking from the cup of consolation (Jer. 16:5-7);
417
LAMENT
calling in mourning women (Jer. 9:16-21); putting on sackcloth (Isa. 15:2-3);
removing one’s beard (Isa. 7:20); beating one’s breast (Nah. 2:7; cf. Jer. 31:19).
But the most prominent and abiding feature of mourning was wailing (Isa. 15:2;
Jer. 22:18; 34:5; Amos 5:16) and the set funeral dirge (2 Sam. 1 :17-—27; 3:33 ff.).
2. Mourning for the dead held a special place in the preaching of the prophets.
Whilst Lam. bewails and interprets the divine judgment which has already befallen
Judah and — Jerusalem, the prophets announced —in the “prophetic perfect”’
and indeed often in the form of a lament for the dead — a catastrophe which still
lies in the future (Mic. 1:8; Jer. 9:10; Amos 5:1-2; 16-17; Ezek. 32:1-16). By
doing this they aimed to arouse the people and call them to repentance (Jer. 9:18;
Ezek. 19; 27:30-34). But it is characteristic of Israel’s faith that again and again
even as the message of destruction rings in their ears, it changes into hope in God
who will deliver them and turn “mourning into dancing” (Ps. 30:11).
3. In Judaism, heathen mourning practices were forbidden (Lev. 19:28; Deut.
14:1), but it was customary before or at a burial to wail and lament for the dead,
to beat the breast and so to fulfil one’s loving obligations toward the dead person.
On the other hand, it was believed that the dead person could still hear the lamen-
tation and the praise until the stone was rolled before the grave, and that he was
comforted by the vehement expressions of sorrow.
4. In the Hellenistic period, attempts were made by the state (with the support
of enlightened philosophy) to check the extravagances which had crept into mourn-
ing customs. These attempts, however, met with little success. A marked feature
of this period was the funeral song, used by men and women, relatives and pro-
fessional mourners as a cultic lamentation for the dead.
NT In the NT kopté occurs only 8 times and then exclusively in the Synoptic
Gospels and Rev. kopetos is used only once (Acts 8:2). apokoptoé is found 6
times in different books, while enkopto and enkopé are Pauline words (6 times in all;
— Hinder). The verbs thréneo and — penthed, which are closely related to kopto in
meaning, occur 4 times (Matt. 11:17; Lk. 7:32; 23:37; Jn. 16:20) and 10 times
respectively, and mainly in the Gospels.
1. Evidence of the existence of Jewish mourning customs in the time of Jesus is
given by Jesus’ parable of the children lamenting the dead when playing at funerals
(Matt. 11:17; Lk. 7:32). The story of Jairus’s daughter (Matt. 9:23; Mk. 5:38;
Lk. 8:52) shows that following immediately upon a person’s death, the lamentation
was begun by a great crowd of relatives, neighbours and mourning women. After
the death of Lazarus (Jn. 11:17, 30) and four days after the burial, i.e. at the cul-
mination of a seven-day period of mourning, there gathered in Bethany a great
crowd of neighbours and acquaintances from Jerusalem, weeping (v. 33) and seek-
ing to console Mary and Martha (vv. 19, 31). Mourning women met Jesus on the
way to Golgotha (Lk. 23:27), and in the early Christian church “‘devout men”’
came together after the death of Stephen to make “great lamentation’’ over him
(Acts 8:2).
2. What significance attaches to the fact that Jesus wept on the way to the grave
of Lazarus (Jn. 11:35)? Do not his tears express his compassion for men, subject
as they are to death and all its woe? Does he not “groan in spirit” (vv. 33, 38 AV)
because of the faithless and hopeless lamentation for the dead with which he finds
418
LAMENT
himself surrounded? He has come to take upon himself man’s suffering and dis-
tress, his abandonment and death, so becoming the conqueror of death. His
saving, life-giving work puts an end to lamentation for the dead (Lk. 7:13). How
can the Pharisees expect wailing and lamentation of him who is life and who
brings life? The cross and resurrection of Jesus manifest his victory over death.
There is no place for hopeless lamentation in his presence; to indulge in it is
nothing other than doubt and unbelief. Sorrow over death for the Christian does
not mean being left to his own resources, but in his very natural grief he is sus-
tained by the hope of the resurrection of the dead.
3. Thus the characteristic of the Christian church is not lamentation for the
dead, but the hope of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:23). Since God’s gift in Jesus
is eternal life, lamentation for the dead belongs to those who are far from God,
who are themselves under the sentence of death and who have no hope. The new
world of eternal life which we hope for because of Jesus’ death and resurrection
knows no tears and lamentation, for ‘‘death shall be no more, neither shall there
be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed
away” (Rev. 21:4). All natural mourning for those who have fallen asleep is now
irradiated by the living hope of the resurrection (Rom. 8:17, 18). By faith in the
conqueror of death we enter into the truth of Christ’s promise: ““Your sorrow will
turn into joy” (Jn. 16:20). H. Haarbeck
——_ ae. ~~ | Avné@ (lyped), inflict pain; Avréopa (lypeomai), feel
| DMEW oe
pain, be sad; Avy (lypé), sorrow, pain.
cL In Hellenism /ypé denotes physical pain and emotional suffering. Joy and
sorrow are part and parcel of human life, and already in Gk. tragedy, sorrow
(pathos) had been recognized as one of life’s basic components. Aeschylus saw it
as an educative factor (pathei mathos, learning from suffering, Ag. 177), which is
the basis of all Gk. tragedy. Hellenistic philosophy understood sorrow as the
antithesis to the joy that is worth striving for (hédoné, pleasure [— Desire]; euphro-
syné, cheerfulness, —> joy; eudaimonia, happiness). The Stoics saw it as man’s task
to overcome sorrow by means of frugality and impassiveness. Only at a later
period, particularly in gnosticism, was a more positive understanding of sorrow
attained: through accident, sickness and pain man is refined and brought to
salutary repentance.
oT The LXX translates 13 different Hebrew verbs by /yped (some 50 times) to
denote physical hardship, pain, sorrow, grief, mourning, fear, displeasure and
anger. There is, however, no clear distinction between this word-group and such
concepts as odyné, pain; thymod, make (become) angry; orgizd, to be angry; or
such roots as kako- (bad) and ponéro- (evil). The different Heb. words reveal the
amazing ability of oriental man to differentiate between feelings, especially in the
case of such basic emotions as sorrow and joy. The emotions concerned are always
those of everyday life, and are not subjected to any kind of theoretical analysis.
It is interesting to note that /yped and lypé are used principally in the later
writings of the OT and in the Apocrypha (especially Dan., Prov., Sir., and 4 Macc.).
The only explanation of sorrow and pain given in Gen. 3 is that /ypé is sent by
419
LAMENT
God as a result of the fall of man (wv. 16 ff.). This basic interpretation of human
life as en lypé (‘in sorrow’’) does not stand alone. The wisdom literature speaks of
the /ypé that is present even in joy (Prov. 14:13) and has to be overcome (Sir.
30:21 ff.). When Isaiah (1:5) says that the whole heart of the people is turned eis
lypén (‘‘to sorrow’’), he means that they are in the worst state imaginable. On the
other hand, eschatological salvation is promised as a time without sorrow and
sighing (Isa. 35:10; 51:11); the age to come will know nothing but joy and glory
(2 Esd. 7:13).
Judaism did not advance beyond a generalized conception of /ypé, closely tied to
morality.
NT In the NT (as in the LXX) there are fewer references to mourning than to the
opposite concept of — joy. lyped occurs 21 times, and lypé only 14 times,
whereas — chairé and — chara are found 69 and 60 times respectively. The ratio
of these words associated with sorrow to those associated with rejoicing is thus
roughly 1:4. While Matt. prefers the vb. /yped and Jn. the noun /ypé, both vb. and
noun are used most frequently in 2 Cor., a fact which indicates Paul’s profound
personal understanding of “godly sorrow’.
1. In general in the NT /ypé denotes physical as well as emotional pain. Jesus
experienced fear and dread before his death (Matt. 26:37, 38), and the disciples
sorrow in Gethsemane (Lk. 22:45). Paul was “‘grieved’’ (perhaps even ill-treated)
by a member of the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 2:5). Both in the OT and the NT,
the sufferings of this present time are seen as contrary to the purpose of creation;
hence the longing to be free of them. In 2 Cor. 2:1 ff. Paul hopes that the Corin-
thians will cause him no further grief. The OT expectation of salvation is taken
over by the NT, future consolation being promised to those who are now sorrowing
(Matt. 5:4 has penthed, whereas Lk. has /yped). Rev. looks forward to a new
heaven and a new earth from which pain and sorrow will be banished (7:17; 21:4).
2. Paul portrays /ypé as an essential mark of the Christian life. In 2 Cor. 7:8-11
he contrasts the kata theon lypé, godly sorrow, with the lypé tou kosmou, the sorrow
of the world. While worldly sorrow laments personal disappointment and the
transitoriness of life, godly sorrow brings one to see one’s own guilt and leads to
penitence. “‘For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and
brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death” (v. 10). Within the framework
of his theology of the cross Paul speaks of himself as taking up the — cross of
Christ (Gal. 6:14). This lays upon his shoulders the cross of this world’s sorrow
and pain; hence the catalogues of his sufferings, found in 2 Cor. 4:8 ff. and 11:23 ff.
While the non-Christian fears the loss of his own life, the Christian finds new life
(2 Cor. 4:11; Phil. 3:10 f.) in being crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6). This leads
to paradox in the experience of the believer. All the normal values relating to life
and suffering are reversed (cf. the antitheses of 2 Cor. 6:3-10, especially v. 10:
hos lypoumenoi, aei de chairontes, ‘‘as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing’’).
3. That which Paul describes as a present paradox in Christian experience is set
out in Jn. 16:20—22 as a temporal sequence. The church at the present time is sad,
because of Christ’s departure and apparent absence, though for the “world” this is
a cause for rejoicing. Jn. shows that the present lot of the church is to endure
loneliness and the world’s hatred; these, together with the fact that Jesus is no
420
LAMENT
longer visibly present with her, are some of the reasons for her lypé. At the same
time, however, the departing Christ promises his church joy at his return; this
joy no one will take from her (v. 22). H. Haarbeck, H.-G. Link
| Bpbyo | Bpbyo (brychd), gnash; Bpvyyoc (brygmos), gnashing.
CL The vb. brycho is used in secular Greek of the act of eating noisily or greedily,
as well as the act of gnashing the teeth. It was also used metaphorically in the
sense of gnawing or eating away as in the case of a disease (Sophocles). The noun
brygmos connotes a biting (Nicander) and a gnashing of the teeth (Eupolis). It is
used in Sir. 51:3, apparently in the sense of biting, for the writer gives thanks for
deliverance from “‘the gnashings of teeth about to devour me.”’
oT In the LXX brychoé occurs in the sense of gnashing the teeth at someone. In
each instance it stands for the Heb. harag. This word is used only in the OT
poetic literature, where it connotes the act of gnashing the teeth. In every instance
the gnashing of the teeth is in demonstration of anger (Job 16:9; Pss. 35:16; 37:12;
112:10), with the possible exception of Lam. 2:16 where it may convey the idea of
mocking.
The noun brygmos occurs in Prov. 19:12 to translate Heb. naham, where it
denotes the wrath of a king. naham is used of the growling of a lion (Prov. 28:15;
Isa. 5:29, 30), and figuratively of groaning (Prov. 5:11; Ezek. 24:23). In Isa. 5:29,
30 the word seems to imply the growl of a lion as it devours its prey. The fem. form
of the noun is used figuratively of the roaring of the sea (Isa. 5:30) and the groaning
of the heart (Ps. 38:9).
NT In the NT brycho is used only once (Acts 7:54) and occurs in an expression
describing the angry reaction of those who listened to Stephen’s speech. Their
reaction was one of rage and “‘grinding the teeth.’ The act of grinding the teeth
here is clearly expressive of anger.
The noun brygmos always occurs in the set expression ekei estai ho klauthmos
kai ho brygmos toén odonton (“there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth’’). The
expression occurs in Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28, and
always describes the condition of the wicked in the future life. The precise meaning
of this expression can be derived only from its usage in each context, for there are
no precise parallels in secular Gk. and Jewish literature (K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT I
642). While it is true that in many instances the usage of brycho in the expression
“to gnash the teeth’? connotes anger, the association of the word with klauthmos
(weeping), and the figure of torment that accompanies the term in Matt. 13:42,
50 seems to indicate that the gnashing of the teeth is not an indication of rage but
of extreme suffering and remorse. T. McComiskey
meEvOEw (penthed), be sad, grieve, mourn; 2évOo0c (penthos)
mEvVOEm
grief, sadness, mourning.
CL The vb. penthed means to lament or mourn, frequently with the connotation of
mourning for someone (Herodotus, Aeschylus). The noun penthos is used in
421
LAMENT
secular Greek in the sense of ““mourning”’ or “‘sorrow’’. It is used especially of the
external signs of mourning, as when mourning for the dead.
oT In the LXX pentheo stands chiefly for the vb. ’abal which means to mourn, and
in the majority of cases connotes the act of mourning over realized or impending
misfortune. It is frequently used figuratively of inanimate objects such as the earth,
the land, or parts of the structure of cities upon which catastrophe has come or is
yet to come (cf. Isa. 3:26; 24:4; 33:9; Jer. 4:28; 23:10; Lam. 2:8; Hos. 4:3). A
sense of loss frequently pervades the description of catastrophe. It is also used of
mourning over the death of an individual (2 Ki. 14:2; 1 Chron. 7:22), of remorse
in general (Neh. 8:9), and of the sorrow experienced during the absence of a loved
one 2 Ki. 13:27; 19:1).
The vb. pentheo also stands for the Hebrew ’a@mal (to be weak, to languish) in
Isa. 16:8; 19:8; 24:4, 7; 33:9. The frequent use of ’Gmal in contexts of mourning
may indicate that it was used occasionally to describe the psychological and
physical effects of mourning. In Gen. 23:2 and 50:3 pentheo stands for the Heb.
bakadh (weep), and in Ps. 78(77):63 it is used somewhat dubiously to translate
halal (praise).
In Jer. 23:10 pentheo occurs as the translation of nid (to flutter or quiver, hence
also to show the emotion of grief), and in Ezek. 31:15 it occurs as the translation
of gadar (to darken oneself, i.e., mourn). The vb. thus connotes various aspects of
sorrow including the outward demonstration of remorse.
The noun penthos represents the Heb. ’ébel, the specific meaning of which is akin
to the verbal form ’abal, mourning (e.g. Gen. 27:1; 50:10 f.; Amos 5:16; 8:10; Isa.
60: 20).
NT The vb. penthed occurs in Matt. 9:15 in the sense of sorrow over the absence
of a loved one, and in Mark 16:10 it is used of those who mourned the death
of Christ. Paul uses it of the sorrow he may have to experience when he learns that
some have not repented of their sins (2 Cor. 12:21).
In the Lucan account of the Beatitudes the word occurs as the antithesis of >
laugh (6:25) describing the eventual mourning of those who laugh now. The
reference here is to those who are not contrite now and who will later experience
the results of their lack of contrition. In the Matthean account of the Beatitudes
(5:4) the word pentheo is used of sorrow in a general sense.
In Rev. 18:11, 15, 19, the judgment on — Babylon is mourned by those who
trafficked with her. The deep sense of loss at the destruction of their source of
wealth pervades the description of their reaction.
_ The term is used by Paul and James in a sense closely paralleling the concept of
godly sorrow or repentance. In 1] Cor. 5:2 Paul uses penthed to describe the attitude
that should characterize the Corinthian Christians relative to the immorality
among them. He describes their present attitude as ‘“‘arrogant’’ (pephysiomenoi,
lit. ‘‘puffed up’’) and indicates that they should rather ‘“‘mourn”’ (epenthésate) over
the situation. James exhorts sinners to ““mourn and weep” as an aspect of their
humbling themselves before God. This attitude of mind will lead to God’s exalting
them (4: 8-10).
The noun penthos is used by James in a sense similar to his use of the vb., 1.e.,
in the sense of godly sorrow. In Jas. 4:8, 9 he calls on sinners to draw near to God,
422
LAMENT
cleanse their hands, purify their hearts, be wretched (talaipdrésate), mourn (pen-
thésate) and weep. The section is concluded by the exhortation to humble them-
selves before the Lord and he will exalt them (— Humility, — Height, art. hypsoo).
In Rev. 18:7 f. penthos is used in the sense of sorrow due to catastrophe and
loss. In this context it describes the sorrow and mourning to come on — Babylon
at her fall. By contrast in Rev. 21:4 it is used in the sense of sorrow in general, the
removal of which will lead to the — joy to be experienced by men when the future
state is realized in the new — Jerusalem. T. McComiskey
; atevalw (stenazo), to sigh, groan; otevayyoc (stenag-
| OTEVaC@ |
mos), sigh, groan, groaning.
cL The vb. stenazo is used in secular Greek of sighing or moaning. It occurs
transitively in the sense of sighing over or bemoaning. The noun stenagmos
connotes a sighing or groaning.
oT In the LXX stenazo stands for several Hebrew words. It represents the verb
"abal in Isa. 19:8 and is used again for ’andh in the same verse. Both Heb.
words connote the general concept of mourning. On several occasions it stands
for the niphal of ’@nah which means chiefly to sigh or groan, connoting the sighing
of grief due to physical suffering, loss or distress (Isa. 24:7; Lam. 1:8, 21; Ezek.
21:6f. [11 f-]).
In Ezek. 26:15 it stands for ’a@nag, a word which denotes the groaning of the
wounded in its two occurrences in the qal (Ezek. 26:15; Jer. 51:52) and which in
the niphal connotes sighing as an expression of grief (Ezek. 9:4; 24:17).
Once (Isa. 59:11) stenazé represents hamdh (growl, murmur) where it describes
the roaring of a bear. It stands for za‘ag (cry out) in Job 31:38 where it is used
metaphorically to describe the crying out of the land. In Nah. 3:7 it represents
nid (flutter, show grief) in a context asking who will bemoan — Nineveh. In Job
24:12 stenazo represents ’Ggam (to be grieved) and in Job 30:25 it stands for Sawa‘
(cry out for help).
The noun stenagmos represents noun forms of several of the previously cited
Hebrew verbs, most frequently “*ndgah. On one occasion, however, it stands for
hérén (Gen. 3:17) which means pregnancy. The LXX rendering seems to be a
metaphorical use of stenagmos. It also represents n°’ aqah from nd’aq (groan) in
Exod. 2:24; 6:5; Jdg. 2:18 where it is used of groaning as a result of physical
affliction and distress.
It stands for na@ham (growl, groan) in Ps. 37:8, where it describes the groaning
of the Psalmist in his distress, and for sarah (distress) in Jer. 4:31 where it describes
the anguish of a woman in travail.
NT The vb. stenazo is used in Mark 7:34 in the general sense of sighing as the ex-
pression of inward emotion. Paul uses the term exclusively of sighing in the sense
of longing for something (Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:2, 4). In Heb. 13:17, however,
stenazo stands as the antithesis of “‘joyfully”’ (meta charas) and hence is a surrogate
for “‘sorrow”’ in this context.
James uses the vb. with the phrase kat’ allélon to connote the concept of grum-
bling or complaining “‘against one another”’ (5:9).
423
LAMENT/LARGE
The noun stenagmos is used in two instances in the NT. In Acts 7:34 it is used
to describe the groaning of the Israelites in their slavery in + Egypt. In this usage
it is reminiscent of the use of n°’ Gqah in the OT which is used on three of four occa-
sions to describe the groanings of the Israelites while under oppression.
In Rom. 8:26 the word is used in the expression stenagmois alalétois, ‘‘with sighs
too deep for words”’ (RSV), to refer to the intercession of the Holy — Spirit. There
is a progression in the context where Paul moves from the groaning of the creation
(v. 22) to the groaning of the Christian. The clear element of a sympathetic re-
lationship of the Holy Spirit to the spirit of the believer (vv. 9, 16) and the reference
to the groaning of the believer in the immediately preceding context (v. 23) seem to
warrant the view that the groaning is shared by the Holy Spirit and the believer.
The groanings of the heart are observed by the one who “‘searches the hearts of
men” (v. 27) but are not expressed audibly. These deep groanings are not lost to
the Spirit but utilized in his intercession for the believer. The deep emotive elements
in stenagmos are to be retained here. It is the groaning of distress or deep emotion.
(For further discussion of this passage —> Prayer, art. entynchano.)
T. McComiskey
— Bury, — Cry, — Joy, > Laugh
(a). R. Bultmann, lypé etc., TDNT IV 313-24; and penthos etc., TDNT VI 40-43; T. Collins, ‘“‘The
Physiology of Tears in the Old Testament’, CBQ 33, 1971, 18-38, 185-97; N. K. Gottwald,
Studies in the Book of Lamentations, SBT 14, 1954; F. F. Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the
Old Testament, 1962; K. H. Rengstorf, brychd etc., TDNT I 641 ff.; and klaio etc., TDNT Il 722—
26; J. F. Ross, “Job 33:14-30: The Phenomenology of Lament’, JBL 94, 1975, 38-46; J. Schneider,
stenazo etc., TDNT VII 600-3; G. Stahlin, thréned etc., TDNT III 148-55; and kopetos etc. TDNT
III 830-52.
(b). C. Westermann, “‘Struktur und Geschichte der Klage im Alten Testament’’, ZAW 66, 1954,
44 ff.
Large, Small
The twin concepts, large and small, in Gk. megas and mikros, are put together here
because the two words are always being related to each other, whether 1n quanti-
tative mathematical comparisons or in qualitative value judgments. The words take
on a particular importance in the NT through being used to express qualification
or disqualification in the sight of God. The nouns formed from megas are also
used to express attributes of God.
; Léyac, weyadn, péya (megas, megalé, mega), large, great;
Leyadtvw@ (megalyno), make large, great, magnify;
Lleyadelotns (megaleiotés), grandeur ; eyadmoavvy (megalésyné), majesty ; weyadcia
(megaleia), mighty deeds.
CL 1. megas, great, is the antonym of — mikros, small, and occurs from Mycenae-
an Greek (Linear B) onwards in literature, the papyri and inscriptions. Its use
ranges from the measurement of physical shapes and spaces, via qualities, to
designations of rank (e.g. in Homer, Aeschylus, Pindar). Used as an epithet of
honour, megas occurs frequently in the formula of acclamation, megas theos,
424
LARGE
great god, and in connection with the names of gods. While the superlative,
megistos, is also attested as early as the Jliad, the comparative, meizén, does not
occur until Heraclitus. According to the context, the emphasis of megas varies in
translation: fully grown, important, magnificent, powerful.
2. The derived vb. megalyné occurs first in Thucydides. Used transitively it
means to make great, and is chosen for figurative use in the sense of to praise,
glorify. The two nouns megaleiotés, grandeur, splendour, and megaldsyné, majesty,
splendour, are not attested in pre-Christian literature. megaleia, good and mighty
deeds, is the neut. plur. of megaleios used as a noun; this adj. is first used by
Xenophon and Menander.
oT 1. The LXX employs all five words to translate several Heb. words by far the
most numerous of which are those formed from the root gdl (great). It is
impossible to establish a specific connotation for megas (which occurs about 820
times) in different OT writings. The same is true of megalyno (93 times), which had
just begun to emerge in secular Gk. at the time of the composition of the earliest
LXX writings.
2. (a) The fact that megas was chosen to translate several Heb. words suggests
that at that time the translators were not making great efforts always to find the
exactly corresponding Gk. term, but were generalizing. On the other hand, megas
was not always chosen where gado/ occurs in the Heb. text (e.g. Gen. 15:14; Isa.
12:6).
(b) In contrast to the wide-ranging use of the adj. the derived nouns have a
clear denotation. In addition to two verses in the Apocrypha (1 Esd. 1:5; 4:40),
megaleiotés is used in Jer. 33:9 (LXX 40:9) and Dan. 7:27 (where, however,
Theodotion has megaldsyné) in connection with the fact that God’s activity in
Israel will extend also to every people of the earth in power and glory. megalosyné
occurs in 32 places, of which 11 are in the Apocrypha and 7 in Dan. It is used
predominantly in expressions of God’s surpassing greatness and power (e.g. 2
Sam. 7:23). God redeemed — Israel for himself (—~ Redemption, art. /ytron), and
created a place especially for his people to live in. Similarly in 1 Chr. 17:19 and
Ps. 150:2 the thought is of God’s creative will and of his lordship over history,
and in particular his glorious deeds. There is, therefore, a twofold usage: (a) to
describe God’s greatness; and (b) to summon men to see and praise God’s great-
ness, i.e. to glorify him (— Glory).
megaleia has the same almost exclusive reference to Yahweh’s mighty acts (e.g.
Deut. 11:2; Ps. 106:21 [LXX 105:21]). At times the OT presents Yahweh as
greater than all gods (cf. Exod. 18:11; Ps. 77:13 [LXX 76:13]).
NT 1. The megas word-group is attested 258 times in the NT. The adj. occurs
particularly frequently in Lk. (194 times, and the comparative meiz6n a further
48 times) and in Acts (64 times), but also 30 times in Matt.; it is also particularly
prominent in the later letters (Pastorals, Eph., 2 Pet., Jude, and Heb.), while the
group rarely appears in the earlier Pauline writings (e.g. Rom. 9:2; 1 Cor. 12:31;
13:13; 2 Cor. 10:15). Jn. is characterized by the use (13 times) of the comparative
meizon, against 5 times for megas. But it is in Rev. that the greatest number of
occurrences (80) are to be found. The combination small and great, meaning all
without distinction, which is typical of Acts but which also occurs in Rev. (e.g.
425
LARGE
Acts 8:10; 26:22; Rev. 11:18; 20:12), rests on LXX usage (cf. Gen. 19:11; 1 Sam.
30:2).
(a) megas is theologically important in various synoptic sayings of Jesus. These
reveal his rejection of the Rab. Jewish striving after piety, as it was then practised
in a world strictly divided into great and small, i.e. into people of higher and lower
standing. The sayings concern rewards and true greatness in the kingdom of
heaven. They cut across the Pharisaic attitude to commandments (Matt. 5:19 f.),
warn about the enmity of man (Lk. 6:23), and call for love of one’s enemies (Lk.
6:35). Jesus’ own attitude is further illustrated by his teaching on the — sabbath
which leads to the declaration that “‘something greater than the temple is here”’
(Matt. 12:6), namely the order of the > kingdom of God, which is already
present.in the actions and person of Jesus himself. |
(b) The reasons for the 80 instances of megas in Rev. are bound up with the
literary form in which apocalyptic thought is expressed. megas also occurs in the
apocalyptic discourses in the Gospels (Matt. 24:21, 24, 31; Mk. 13:2; Lk. 21:11,
23). It is used in the larger-than-life symbolism which characterizes the eschato-
logical dimension of events, e.g. the day (Rev. 6:17), the earthquake (16:18), and
the city (18:2, 10, 16, 18 f., 21). Particularly striking is the occurrence (21 times)
of phoné megalé, “‘with a great [i.e. loud] voice’. The expression indicates especially
the sovereignty of God which drowns all other sounds in the voices of his messen-
gers (e.g. Rev. 1:10; 5:2; 7:2; 10:3; 11:15; 16:1; 21:3; Angel). The note
of divine sovereignty is also heard in the loud voice of the multitude praising him
(e.g. Rev. 5:12; 6:10; 7:10; 19:1). The phrase is found also with a similar meaning in
the Gospels, where it is used, moreover, both of the cry of Jesus on the cross (Matt.
27:50; Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46) and also of the demons’ cry of terror (Lk. 4:33; —
Word, art. phone).
2. As a result of the normative usage of the LXX and of inter-Testamental
tradition in a Hellenistic environment, all three nouns have a similar meaning.
megaleiotés is reserved in the NT for God’s majesty, supremacy and splendour
(Lk. 9:43; 2 Pet. 1:16; cf. Acts 19:27 where on heathen lips it refers to the great
goddess Artemis). megalésyné, which is a synonym for it, occurs in Heb. 1:3; 8:1;
Jude 25, as a surrogate and periphrasis for God, expressing his sublime majesty.
Apart from the y./. in Lk. 1:49, megaleia occurs only in Acts 2:11, where the Jews
of the Dispersion visiting Jerusalem express amazement at hearing the followers of
Jesus ‘‘telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God’’ (—> Pentecost).
3. In Jn. the comparative meizén appears only in the discourses. It brings into
prominence Jesus’ claims and the unique effectiveness of his work. In authority
he is “greater” than Jacob (— Israel), Abraham or other men, for he brings
— life (4:12; 8:53; 5:20, 36). His works have been given him by the Father who,
however, despite the unity and equality which exist between the two, is “‘greater’’
than Jesus himself (10:29; 14:28). The commission with which the Father sends
the Son is balanced by the Son’s obedience in carrying out his work of love.
4. megas takes on special significance in a number of passages which have
particular theological importance in that they have no exact parallels in pre- and
non-Christian literature. Jesus’ teaching thus presents something quite new.
(a) In Matt. 22:36, 38 Jesus is asked a controversial question about the entolé
megalé, the great commandment (cf. Mk. 12:28 which has ‘“‘first commandment of
426
LARGE
all’’). The use of the positive instead of the superlative, 1.e. ““great’’ instead of
“‘sreatest”’, is a Semitism (cf. Moulton, Grammar, III, 31). Jesus replied by re-
ferring to the double commandment to love God and one’s neighbour. He thus
made an essential organic connection between Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18, which
was not commonly made in Jewish legal thought (but cf. Lk. 10:25 ff. and Test.
Iss. 5:2, the date of which is disputed; -- Command, art. entolé). ([Ed.] Some
rabbinic teaching tended to emphasize the equal importance of all commandments
[Mekilta Exod. 6; Sifre Deut. 12:28; 13:19; 19:11; cf. D. Hill, The Gospel of
Matthew, 1972, 306], but there were also tendencies in Judaism to seek a single
principle [cf. D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956, 247—73].)
Similarly, the works that Jesus does and the “‘greater works”’ that the disciples
will do are to be understood as combining this love for God and love for man.
Jesus utterly rejected the casuistical comparison of commandments, and focused
his radical demand on love in the form of service which must underlie all works
(—> Serve, art. diakoned; —> Love, art. agapé; —> Hear, art. akouo).
(b) In the case of the corresponding pericope in Lk., which meets us in a different
setting, Jesus’ answer is linked directly with the parable of the Good Samaritan
(10:25 ff.). This makes clear how, in Jesus’ understanding of love, a special standard
for reckoning greatness and smallness applies. His own story is the standard example
for those who would obey the two-fold “greatest”? commandment, who would
turn to God in love and, by so doing, also towards their neighbour. (On the parable
see W. Monselewski, Der barmherzige Samariter, Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zu Lukas 10, 25-37, 1967; J. D. M. Derrett, ““The Parable of the Good
Samaritan’”’, Law in the New Testament, 1970, 208-27.)
(c) Thus, as regards function, the “‘greatest commandment”’ goes hand in hand
with the definition of greatness and smallness in the kingdom of heaven, as it
appears in the passage where the disciples argue about precedence (Matt. 18:1—5;
Mk. 9:33-37; Lk. 9:46 ff.). Jesus demonstrated by his action the supremely valid
guideline for his disciples. He put a child in their midst and declared, ‘“Whoever
receives one such child in my name” (Matt. expands in v. 4: “Whoever humbles
himself like this child,”’ 1.e. acknowledges his own smallness), whoever in this way
offers service to the small, is ho meizon, the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
(d) In this devaluation and revaluation of worldly orders of precedence the
structure of the Christian community, determined by the model of Christ, emerges
as one based on service to others. It is essentially a fellowship characterized by
service (cf. Lk. 22:26f., where the greatest is used as a parallel to, indeed as a
synonym of the one who serves: also Matt. 20:26; 23:11; Mk. 10:43 f.). The
discussions about the greatness or smallness of John the Baptist are to be under-
stood in just the same way (Matt. 11:11; Lk. 7:28). His status, because of what
happened in the era of Jesus, is revalued in so far as Jesus, with the ushering-in of
the —> kingdom of God, performs the greatest work, while the Baptist still belongs
to the previous era of expectation (cf. W. Grundmann, TDNT IV 534 f.).
F. Thiele
—_ — a plk pdc (mikros), small, little; €Adgawv (elassén), smaller,
| gis ai | younger; éAayiotoc (elachistos), very small, the least;
dAtyos (oligos), little, small, few.
427
LARGE
CL The adj. mikros, small, is found in Gk. literature from Homer on as the antonym
of — megas, great. In evaluations and comparisons the two words express a
quantitative or qualitative difference which can refer to things, living beings and
periods of time. elass6én (smaller, younger) is the comparative of mikros and elachis-
tos (very small, the least) the superlative. A comparative, not found until later,
was formed from this, i.e. elachistoteros, the very least. oligos also occurs in Gk.
literature from Homer on. It designates a small quantity, a small number, also a
few people or a few days.
OT 1. The LXX uses mikros, together with its comparative and superlative, about
190 times to translate a variety of concepts, of which gdatdn, gaton (small,
young) and m*‘at (a few) are the most frequent. They are as widely used as in Hel.
Greek, e.g. little houses (Amos 6:11), a small light (Gen. 1:16), something almost
(lit. by a little) happened (Ps. 73:2 [LXX 72:2]), a younger son, a small boy (1 Sam.
16:11; Isa. 11:6). Sometimes there is the combination “‘small and great’ in the
sense of — all (e.g. Deut. 1:17; Ps. 115:13 [LXX 113:21)).
The LXX uses also oligos (103 times, of which 51 are in the Apocrypha) as does
secular Gk., e.g. a few days (Gen. 29:20), a small number of Israelites (Deut. 4:27),
man’s short span of life, indicating God’s punishment (Job 10:20; Ps. 109:8,
LXX 108:8). oligos is most frequently used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew
mat, few, a little. |
2. In addition, OT writers use mikros and its derivatives to denote humility
towards God. Gideon called himself the least in his family, from the weakest clan
(Jdg. 6:15). The language of Solomon’s prayer after succession to the throne uses
the courtly style of ancient oriental kingly formulae: “I am but a little child
[paidarion mikron]; I do not know how to go out or come in” (1 Ki. 3:7; cf. RGG®
IIT 1711). Self-effacement before God on the part of God’s elect enjoys his favour
(cf. Isa. 60:22).
3. The OT clearly emphasizes that Yahweh is frequently on the side of the very
people who have little in the way of possessions (e.g. Ps. 37:16 f. [LXX 36:16 f.]).
He often helps by means of small things, e.g. “It is an easy thing for the LoRrD to
help through a few” (1 Sam. 14:6). Such thoughts ‘‘express the transvaluation of
all values before God and His Kingdom” (H. Seesemann, TDNT V 171).
4. The Rabbis often referred to young disciples as “‘little ones’’. But they also
called them ‘“‘immature pupils’? which carried derogatory undertones in comparison
with megas, great (cf. SB I 591 f.).
NT 1. In the NT the lines laid down by the OT are continued. Thus mikros is used
in such expressions as small of stature (Lk. 19:3), of little value (Jn. 2:10),
younger in age (Rom. 9:12; 1 Tim. 5:9). The juxtaposition of small and great as a
periphrasis in Semitic style for “‘all’’ also occurs quite often (e.g. Acts 8:10; Heb.
8:11; Rev. 13:16; 19:5, 18).
oligos (40 times, of which 26 are in the Synoptic and Acts) is similarly used. The
reversal of values mentioned above is theologically significant (e.g. Matt. 25:21, 23;
Lk. 19:17). God will not treat man’s faithfulness in matters of little importance
with contempt, but reward it.
2. The Pauline writings contain the word-group relatively rarely. 1 Cor. 5:6 and
Gal. 5:9 mention the proverb about the far-reaching effects of a little — leaven.
428
LARGE/LAUGH
The adv. mikron and the superlative elachistos occur in contexts in which Paul speaks
of himself, passing judgment or by way of example, in the same self-effacing
manner which we have seen in the OT (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:9; 2 Cor. 11:1, 16; Eph. 3:8
with the special form elachistoteros, he is “the very least’’ of all the saints). 1
Tim. 4:8 declares that bodily training is of a little (oligon) value.
3. (a) With one exception Jn. uses mikros only in a temporal sense, i.e. a little,
a little while (13:33; 14:19). The almost pleonastic heaping up of the word in
16:16-19 denotes first of all the time between Jesus’ discourse and his coming
arrest in Gethsemane “‘in a little while’? and then the short interval until his
disciples meet him after his resurrection. The passage focuses on the eschatological
tension of the short interval. At the same time an element of —> comfort is implied.
(b) Jn. 7:33 and 12:35 are also to be understood in a temporal sense, as is Heb.
10:37 with its reference to a “‘very, very short time [mikron hoson hoson]’’ (cf. Isa.
26:20 LXX).
4. The Synoptics use mikros in one way which differs from the usage of Hellenis-
tic and Jewish literature. Despite their enthusiasm over the innocence of children
(— Child), the latter nevertheless undervalued the “‘little ones” and ‘‘children”’
(cf. O. Michel, TDNT IV 651 f.). Jesus, on the other hand, was specially concerned
for their protection. He sharply warned anyone who caused the least of those who
believe in him to stumble (Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2; — Offence, art. skandalon). Con-
versely, those who do good to the least of these are promised eschatological reward
(Matt. 10:42; 25:40, 45).
The implications for the Christian community in Matt. 18:1-6, 10, 14 (cf. Mk.
9: 33-34, 37, 42; Lk. 9:46 ff.; 17:1 f.) clearly correspond to the character and ways
of God. The kingdom of God is not attained by quarrels over precedence and lust
for greatness but by being least, by self-effacing service (~~ Humility; — Serve),
and poverty (~ Poor) which relies entirely on the sufficiency of God’s help.
The sayings about the little grain of mustard seed (Matt. 13:31 f.; Mk. 4:30 ff.;
Lk. 13:18 f.), which becomes a great tree, about the little flock (Lk. 12:32) and
about John the Baptist being less than the “‘least in the kingdom of God’
(Lk. 7:28) are also to be interpreted from this standpoint. In the Christian com-
munity, and therefore before God, the only thing that counts is the renunciation of
all the greatness that one has striven after. F. Thiele
— Age, Stature, — Child, — Command, — Disciple, ~ Poor, — Possessions
a). Arndt, 298 f., 523; W. Grundmann, megas etc., TDNT IV 529-44; W. G. Kimmel, Promise
and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, SBT 23, 1961, 92 ff.; O. Michel, mikros etc.,
TDNT IV 64859.
(b). O. Bachli, “Die Erwahlung des Geringen im Alten Testament’’, 7hZ 22, 1966, 285 ff.; O.
Michel, ‘‘ ‘Diese Kleinen’ — eine Jiingerbezeichnung Jesu’’, ThStKr 108, 1937-38, 401 ff.
Laugh
yedaw (gelao), laugh; katayeAdw (katagelad), laugh at,
| mock; yéAwe (gelds), laughter.
cL 1. The word group as a whole was in use in Greek literature from the time of
Homer onwards and covered a whole range of meanings from free and joyous
laughter to ridicule and scorn. The compound katagelao is an intensification,
429
vEdaw
LAUGH
meaning either laugh loudly or sneer. The words were not only applied to men but
also to the gods. K. H. Rengstorf (T DNT I 661) notes that for the Romans and the
Greeks merry laughter was a divine characteristic which featured in the theo-
phanies (cf. Virgil, Eclogues 4, 60 ff. where laughter following the birth of a child
denoted its divine character). ‘“ge/ds is a mark of deity which also spreads gelos
in the world around” (K. H. Rengstorf, ibid.).
2. Three categories of humour and irony in the secular Gk. world are of interest
by comparison and contrast with the biblical presentation.
(a) Gk. comedy. The production of a combination of satyric plays and tragedies
in connection with the festival of Dionysus continued well into the NT era, and the
practice had spread throughout the Gk. world. The plots of the comedies include
fantasy and burlesque. The satirical element was very strong. Prominent men in
contemporary society were parodied and even mythology and theology are
treated with great irreverence. It has been argued, however, that, although the gods
were made to appear foolish and cowardly, the reality of their power was consis-
tently assumed. J. Jonsson, using Friedlander’s example of Diogenes Laertius,
‘“‘who says that the Stoic Cleanthes did not care when he was made fun of in a
comedy, because the gods themselves, like Dionysus and Hercules, had been able
to take a good joke,” concludes that the religious humour is to be understood not
as laughing at the gods, but rather as taking part in their own joy (Humour and
Irony in the New Testament, 1965, 35 f.; cf. Diog. Laert. 7, 173; P. Friedlander,
‘“‘Lachende Gotter,” Die Antike 10, 3, 1934, 223). He also cites Carl Schneider who
holds that “‘at the beginning of the Christian era the optimistic and joyful attitude
to life was so common and so deeply rooted in the religious feeling of the people
that humour was a natural expression of religion” (op. cit., 35; cf. C. Schneider,
Geschichte des antiken Christentums, I, 1954, 162 f.).
(b) The dramatic irony of the tragedies. The themes of classical tragedy most
often concerned the relation of man to the powers controlling the universe and
how these powers determined his destiny. Frequently the audience is given a
glimpse behind the scenes and is enabled to foresee the course of events.
(c) Socratic irony. Socrates, as portrayed by Plato, is a teacher of philosophy
who employed humour to great effect as a means of education. He played the part
of an eirdn, one who says less than he thinks (Aristot., Eth. Nic. 2, 7, 12) confessing
his own ignorance and by means of relentless ironical questions forcing his disciples
to abandon their self-confident opinions.
Many scholars have pointed to the connection between Socratic irony and the
comedy characteristic of a ridiculous and boastful pretender (a/az6n, Aristot.,
Eth. Nic. 2, 7, 12) who is humiliated by an eiron in the form of a god, fate, or the
facts of life (cf. J. J6nsson, op. cit., 37 f.; P. Friedlander, op. cit., 214; J. Kruuse,
Humorister, 1945, 53 ff.). One is reminded of the characterization of the “‘fool’’ in
the Bible (cf. Prov. 12:15; Pss. 14:1; 53:1; Lk. 12:20). D. O. Via points to a similar
motif in the early Christian kerygma (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-31, where the — “‘wisdom”’ of
the world is brought to nothing by the “‘foolishness’’ of God [Kerygma and Comedy
in the New Testament, 1975, 45 ff.]).
oT 1. The vb. is used in the LXX to translate sahaq (Job 29:24; Ps. 51[52]:6;
Lam. 1:7), sahaq (Gen. 1:17; 18:12 f.; 15), Samah (Job 22:19), and is without
430
LAUGH
Heb. equivalent in 1 Esd. 4:31; Ezra. 4:17; Job 19:7; Jer. 20:8; Dan. LXX Bel.
18; Dan. Theodotion Bel 7, 19; 4 Macc. 5:28. The noun ge/ds occurs mostly for
the Heb. s*hdqg and is found in Gen. 21:6; Job 8:21; 17:6; Prov. 10:23; Eccl. 2:2;
7:4(3), 7(6); 10:19; Wis. 5:3; Sir. 19:30; 21:20; 27:13; Amos 7:9; Mic. 1:10;
Jer. 20:7; 31(48):26, 39; Lam. 3:14; Ezr. 23:32; 4 Macc. 5:28. K. H. Rengstorf
claims that the words are used exclusively for the true or supposed superiority
towards another expressed in scorn or laughter (Ps. 80:6; Prov. 1:26; 2 Chron.
30:10; Job 12:4; Eccl. 7:6; cf. TDNT I 659). They are never used for righteous or
religious — joy. In Gen. 17:17; 18:12; 13:15 the contrast is between laughter and
belief. In Prov. 10:23 gelds is the mark of a fool, contrasted with wise conduct.
Rengstorf further points out that laughter is rarely attributed to God (Pss. 2:4;
37:13; 59:8; Prov. 1:26) and it only expresses his absolute superiority over the
ungodly who will not accept him as God even though they are nothing beside him
(TDNT I 661).
Certain possible exceptions, however, should be noted. (a) In Gen. 21:6 the
laughter here appears to refer to two different things: a God-given joy for Sarah,
“God has made laughter for me’’, and man’s scornful scepticism, ‘‘everyone who
hears will laugh over me.’’ The LXX gives the whole clause a positive meaning by
substituting synchairo in the second clause. ge/éds had to be retained in the first
half since Sarah is commenting on the aptness of the name Isaac (yishaq) which is a
self-reproachful reminder of their unbelief (Gen. 21:3; — Abraham, arts. Sarra
and Isaak). (b) In Job 29:24 the positive meaning of the Heb. —a smile which
encourages — is interpreted by the LXX to refer to ridicule. (c) In Ps. 126:2 laughter
is associated with the joy of the time of salvation. Rengstorf argues that this again
refers to the laughter of triumph over opponents (TDNT I 661 f.). But the context
does not make this explicit and again the LXX prefers chara (— Joy) to gelos.
It may be concluded therefore that in the OT sahaq and sdhagq are not in general
the marks of righteous joy either for God or man and gelés is even less so.
2. Humour and irony in the OT. The above conclusions should not, however, be
taken to indicate that the OT is humourless. Scholars have been divided on this
question, some regarding humour, i.e. playfulness, as inappropriate to the serious-
ness of the subjects treated. It must be conceded that the assessment of humour is a
highly subjective process. If for example Nebuchadnezzar’s madness in Dan. 4 1s
regarded by some as humorous (W. F. Stinespring, /DB II 662), the dividing line
between tragedy and comedy is a very narrow one. Jonsson maintains that humour
may change according to the state of mind of the person, his attitude towards the
object, and his philosophy of life (op. cit., 23).
There is, however, a general consensus of opinion about certain types of humour
to be found in the OT.
(a) Lighthearted portrayal of people and situations feature in the narrative
passages: e.g. the characterization of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:27-34); Jacob
meets his match in Laban (Gen. 29:15-30); the early life of Joseph (Gen. 37:1-11),
the story of Balaam (Num. 22); Abimelech’s death at the hands of a woman (Jdg.
9 : 50-54); David dressed in armour (1 Sam. 17:38).
(b) Very extensive use of word play. Names are regularly seen to be significant.
In Gen. 25:26 “Jacob” suggests ‘‘following at the heel’ in order to supplant
(‘agab); hence Gen. 27:36 and Jer. 9:4 (on Jacob — Israel, art. Jakob). The
431
LAUGH
prophets’ words include many bitter puns. ‘““The Lord God showed me... a basket
of summer fruit [gayis]... Then the Lord said to me, “The end [gés] has come
upon my people Israel’? (Amos 8:1 f.; cf. also e.g. Hos. 8:7; 12:11; Isa. 5:7; Jer.
1:11-12).
(c) Quiet educational humour. This is best illustrated by the book of Proverbs,
where the teacher gently teases his disciples and makes the sinner look ridiculous
(e.g. 6:9-10; 19:24; 27:15). It is possible to understand Ecclesiastes in this way too
(cf. 3:16—22).
(d) Dramatic irony. This is used to good effect in the story of Joseph (Gen. 42: 6—
45:4), and it is present throughout the book of Job. In so far as the reader is
admitted beforehand into the knowledge of God’s activity it might even be called
divine irony (see below NT 2 (b) on John’s Gospel).
(e) Prophetic irony of varying degrees, from mild sarcasm to bitter satire. This
is used on the one hand with the intent of recalling God’s people to a true aware-
ness of their rebellion against him. It is found in: Samuel’s descriptions of king-
ship (1 Sam. 8:10—18); the ironic words of God himself (Job 40:6 ff.); numerous
passages in the latter prophets (e.g. Isa. 1: 2-3; 28:9-10; 30:10). On the other hand,
ironical scorn and ridicule is hurled at other nations and their gods, who have
dared to challenge the God of Israel: Elijah’s taunts at the prophets of Baal (1 Ki.
18:27); Isaiah’s mockery of idols and those who make them (Isa. 44:9—20); the
comical picture of the arrival of the king of Babylon in Sheol (Isa. 14:3-21). When
this reaches the point of simple exultation over the weakness and downfall of one’s
enemies, as in Nahum, there does not appear to be much humour in it, though
Rengstorf’s conclusions above imply that the verb gelad was primarily used in this
context.
3. Rabbinic literature. It was the concern of the Rabbis at all times to maintain
the majesty of God. According to Rengstorf, the Rabbis seldom spoke of laughter.
sahag is used for the attitude which is the exact opposite of serious application to
Torah. “‘sahaq is contrasted with a pious sense of dependence on God which is well
pleasing to Him. In sahaq there is a rejection of God as the reality which determines
all things and an affirmation of man as an autonomous being” (J DNT I 659). The
four verses noted above where God is said to laugh were assembled by the Rabbis
as a Surprising phenomenon and there was an attempt by them to show that the vb.
in Ps. 2:4 could be taken as a piel: God will make his enemies the objects of mutual
derision (Midrash Ps. 2:6).
Again, however, we discover that this has no bearing on the Rabbinic attitude
to humour. Jonsson collects together evidence to show how the Talmudic litera-
ture makes a wide use of humour (op. cit. 51-89). Humour is employed when
dealing with personal relationships, nature, the after life and even the Scriptures.
There are humorous pictures of God, and Satan is shown in a ridiculous light.
It is not permissible, however, to scoff at or parody Scripture disrespectfully, or use
it to express improper ideas. The main characteristics of Rabbinic humour are self-
irony and educative humour, but never humour for its own sake. Humour never
becomes brutal except where serious heresies are attacked. J6nsson suggests that a
knowledge of types of Rabbinic humour can supply us with a guide for recognizing
humour in the teachings of Jesus (op. cit., 51 ff.).
432
LAUGH
NT 1. The incidence of the ge/aO word-group follows the usage found in the OT
rather than secular Gk. usage. In the account of Jairus’s daughter katagelad
is the scornful, superior laughter of those who ridiculed Jesus, believing that he
could do nothing about someone already dead (kai kategelon autou, “‘and they
laughed at him’’, Matt. 9:24; Mk. 5:40; Lk. 8:53). The story itself illustrates the
power of God in Jesus over man’s ultimate enemy, — death, and at the same time
the emptiness of unbelief which is heightened by the use of this vb. Jesus’ act shows
him to be in the succession of — Elijah (1 Ki. 17:17—24) and Elisha (2 Ki. 4:17-37).
Peter also performed a similar act (Acts 9: 36-42). In Jas. 4:9 gelos denotes activity
which is inappropriate: “‘Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be
turned to mourning and your joy to dejection.”’ For the thought cf. Eccl. 2:2; 7:2-
6; Tob. 2:6; Sir. 21:20; 27:13. Above all it seems to reflect that of the Sermon on
the Plain: “Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh [ge/asete].... Woe
to you that laugh now [ge/ontes], for you shall mourn and weep”’ (Lk. 6:21b, 25b).
Here laughter is associated with salvation joy with no thought of triumph over
enemies. The parallelism between laugh and mourn is not recorded in the Sermon
on the Mount (Matt. 5:6) where the saying refers to mourning (— Lament). The
thought in Lk. may be influenced by Ps. 126:1 f.: ““When the Lord restored the
fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream. Then our mouth was filled with
laughter [Heb. §°h6q; LXX, however, chara, joy], and our tongue with shouts of
joy; then they said among the nations, “The Lord has done great things for them.’ ”’
The coming age of salvation was to be a time of joy for Israel (Test.Jud. 25); but
rabbinic ethics rejected laughter in relation to it, as this was something which only
God could give (Midrash Ps. 126:2; Ber. 3la; cf. SB IV, 2, 965 f.; TDNT I 662).
2. Humour in the NT. Again it is possible to isolate various categories of humour.
(a) The humour of Jesus in the Synoptics. J6nsson maintains that Jesus combines
the rabbinic educational humour with the prophetic irony. “It may depend on our
mood whether we hear the stern and threatening voice of the prophet with his sharp
irony or the mild traditional humour of the Rabbi’’ (op. cit., 198). Jesus had a
sense of comical features in the situations of daily life: a man who rushes out of the
temple leaving his offering behind (Matt. 5:23-24); Matt. 5:40 is comical when it
is realized that the traditional way of describing a fully dressed man was to speak
of his coat, cloak and shoes! Matt. 24:43 alludes to the idiotic attitude of a man
who does not prepare against robbery unless he knows the thief is coming, as a
picture of men’s lack of readiness for the coming of the Son of man. Matt. 4:19 is
perhaps a playful picture. Lk. 7:31 notes the comical inconsistencies of people.
Jesus used word play (aphanizousin ... phanosin, “‘disfigure... may be seen’,
Matt. 6:16; Petros... petra ‘“‘Peter... rock’, Matt. 16:18; > Rock), exaggera-
tion (the speck and the log, Matt. 7:3; the three measures of meal, Matt. 13:33),
and paradox (‘“‘who would save his life will lose it, Mk. 8:35; cf. Matt. 16:25;
Lk. 9:24; Jn. 12:25f.). He probably employed contemporary proverbs and
humorous rabbinic parables (e.g. the humorous side to the picture of the rich man
in Hades, still wishing to use Lazarus as a lackey (Lk. 16:23-37; cf. Talmudic
humorous stories about the after-life). The use of the word apechousin in Matt.
6:2, 5, 16 virtually amounts to: they have had their salary and been given the receipt
(A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1911, 112; cf. the traditional comic
stories about rewards in ML). Jonsson follows H. Clavier in his attempt to classify
433
LAUGH
the irony of Jesus (op. cit., 177; cf. H. Clavier, ‘“‘La méthode ironique dans l’enseign-
ement de Jésus” Etudes Théologiques et Religieuses, 1929-30, 61-5), but it is pro-
bably not possible to do this in a way which makes any clear distinctions. Jesus’
response to the Canaanite woman (Mk. 7:27 par. Matt. 15:26) could have been
an ironical quotation of a Jewish saying. Many of the questions Jesus directed at
his opponents have an ironical ring (Matt. 9:5 par. Mk. 2:9; Lk. 5:23; Matt.
12:12 par. Mk. 3:4; Lk. 6:9; Matt. 21:25, par. Mk. 11:30, Lk. 20:4). There is
irony in the way he takes well known concepts and gives them a different meaning,
e.g. Mk. 2:17 where “‘righteous” means “‘self-righteous”’. Clavier suggests that the
words of Mk. 4:11-12 are ironical, considering the blindness of the disciples (cf.
Mk. 8:17-18; op. cit. 74 ff.). The language of Matt. 23 is comparable with much
of the biting irony of the OT prophets.
(b) Divine irony. Jonsson points out that it would be inappropriate to speak of |
the humorous, i.e. comical, in John’s Gospel. However, John’s christology which
presents so markedly a human Jesus and an eternal Christ in the same person
introduces into the Gospel a sort of dualism and hence a special kind of irony.
Words and ideas carry two senses at the same time (cf. 1:36; 2:19-22; 4:32; 6:20;
11:50; 12:7); and this enigma is highlighted in the Gospel by the questions which
reveal lack of understanding of Jesus’ words and deeds (cf. 2:18; 2:20; 3:4; 4:11).
Whatever men say or do simply serves the purpose of the divine will. To a certain
extent all the evangelists make use of this motif, especially in the Passion narratives
(cf. the widespread use the title — king in questions, accusations, taunts and the
inscription over the cross). It was probably part of the primitive passion tradition.
(c) Lighthearted portrayal of people and situations in narrative passages (as in
OT and Jesus’ teaching). This is found both in the Gospels and the book of Acts
(cf. the gently humorous description of Zacchaeus in Lk. 19:1-6; Peter’s reactions
in Jn. 13; the escape from prison, Acts 5:17-32; the unclean food from heaven
offered to Peter in Acts 10:9-16; Peter left knocking at the door, Acts 12:12-16;
the tribune’s misunderstanding, Acts 21:37—40).
(d) The humour of Paul. Paul, the Pharisee, enjoyed scholarly argumentation
and there is considerable humour and irony in the tussles he had with his opponents.
He posed paradoxical questions (Gal. 2:17; Rom. 3:29; Rom. 6:1; 7:7). He
employed humorous illustrations, e.g. the vessel and the potter which also figured
in classical and rabbinic literature as well as in the OT (Rom. 9: 20-23; cf. Isa.
29:16; 45:9; Jonsson, op. cit., 225); the protest of the different parts of the body
(1 Cor. 12:14-26); the instruments out of tune (1 Cor. 14:7 f.). He used word play:
méden ergazomenous ... periergazomenous, ‘“‘not doing work... busybodies”’
(2 Thess. 3:11; — Busybody). In speaking of the runaway slave Onesimus (whose
name onésimos means useful or beneficial), Paul remarks: ‘“‘Formerly he was useless
[achréston] to you, but now he is indeed useful [euchréston] to you and to me”
(Phim. 11; cf. also onaimén, benefit, v. 20). Finally Paul was prepared to speak of
himself in humorous terms. He was a nervous and unimpressive speaker: ‘And
I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling” (1 Cor. 2:3). He was a
laughing-stock in the arena: “‘For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last
of all, like men sentenced to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world
to angels and to men”’ (1 Cor. 4:9). His boasting turns out to be a list of his suffer-
ings and —> weaknesses, or things for which he can claim no credit such as the
434
LAUGH
gospel and the commission given to him (1 Cor. 9:15-18; 2 Cor. 10:1-13:4; >
Boast). Paul’s attitude to boasting may be compared with what he says about the
alazon, boaster, braggart (Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2; cf. Hab. 2:5; Prov. 21:24; see
also above CL 2 (c) and G. Delling, TDNT I 226 f.).
(ce) Several flashes of humour in the other NT books. James’ humorous similes:
the double-minded man (1:6 ff.); the rudder and the — fire (3:1-6); the idiotic
statement, “be warmed and filled’? (2:16). In | Jn. there is some word play;
antichristos ...hymeis chrisma echete, “‘Antichrist... you have an anointing”
(1 Jn. 2:18).
3. It would be wrong to give the impression that humour and irony are dominant
characteristics of the Bible, but it has been suggested that they are more theo-
logically significant than scholars have usually allowed. At the simplest level the
Bible consists of much teaching and exhortation and every good teacher knows
that his words must be spiced with humour and irony if they are to rivet attention,
especially of those who are reluctant to listen. Irony may be understood as a
special branch of humour, and true humour is one aspect of — joy. Jénsson refers
to E. F. Carritt’s theories that failure provides the food for humour, but only where
failure is not a sign of fatal disaster and where there is a sense of inner superiority
(op. cit., 17 ff.; cf. E. F. Carritt, Theory of Beauty, 1949, 333). This superiority,
says H. Hoffding, following a similar line of thought (Den Store Humor, 1916,
52 ff.), in true humour is not the self-security of arrogance, but the consciousness
of being master of the situation, not indifferent to the seriousness of the battle, but
assured that nothing of true value can ever be destroyed (Jonsson, op. cit., 16 ff).
If such reasoning is correct, humour is the natural expression of the religious joy
represented in the Bible. Jonsson approves with reservations R. Voeltzel’s des-
cription of the irony of the OT which results from the fact that God, while con-
demning the mocking which is a sign of rebellion against himself, cannot help
seeing the ridiculous and comical in the revolt and fighting of the helpless creatures
who intend to frustrate his purposes (op. cit., 13, 48 f.; cf. R. Voeltzel, Le Rire du
Seigneur, 1955, 103). Similarly Barth, taking a different interpretation of Gen.
17:17 and 18:12, argues that laughter is man’s humble reaction to the amazing
and ridiculous fact of man being a recipient of God’s honour (K. Barth, CD III,
4, 665). Jesus came with a joyful message, and though he took the opposition
seriously he was profoundly conscious that the victory lay with God. Hence his
light-hearted humour (Jonsson, op. cit., 195 f.). Similarly it should be accepted as
natural “that humour was a fairly strong sentiment among the first Christians,
not in spite of the ‘eschatological’ situation, but because of it... just where we
might expect the sense of the tragic humour breaks forth, triumphing, because
failure will not be allowed to hinder the work of God”’ (Jonsson, op. cit., 255).
Certainly irony is written into the basic facts of redemption: God promised a
childless man who was “‘as good as dead”’ (Heb. 11:12) that he would be father
of a nation; he chose not a great and powerful nation to serve his purposes, but a
small one which was despised and often at the mercy of its powerful neighbours;
the climax of the world’s rejection of God — the cross — was in fact the means he
used to redeem the world (1 Cor. 2:6-8); hence the Christian knows that he is
strongest when most aware of his weakness (2 Cor. 12:10). Biblical theology has
irony in its very essence.
435
LAUGH/LAW
Finally, however, we must notice from the above discussions that for the OT
and NT ge/ao is not the appropriate expression of joy or true humour. As with
paizo, play, make sport, or empaizo, ridicule, make fun of, mock, trick, it is as-
sociated too closely with idolatry, licentiousness and irreverence. Joy is expressed
in such words as chairo, rejoice; agalliad, exult, be overjoyed; euphraind, make
glad; orcheomai, dance; auled, play the flute; add, sing; psalld, sing praise (with
an instrument). The humour of the Bible is dancing and singing through the spoken
and written word. E. M. Embry
—> Joy, — Lament, — Pride
(a). G. Bertram, paiz6 etc., TDNT I 625-36; M. D. Goldman, ‘‘Humour in the Hebrew Bible’’,
Australian Biblical Review 2, 1952, nos. 1-2; R. K. Harrison, ‘‘Humor’’, ZPEB III 224 ff.; F. F.
Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament, 1962; J. Jonsson, Humour and Irony in the
New Testament, Illuminated by Parallels in Talmud and Midrash, 1965; K. H. Rengstorf, gelad etc.,
TDNT I 658-62; F. Rosenthal, Humour in Early Islam, 1956; J. Reumann, ‘‘St. Paul’s Use of
Irony’, Lutheran Quarterly 7, 1955, 140-45; W. F. Stinespring, ““Humor’’, /DB II 660 ff.; D. O.
Via, Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament, 1975 (concerned with comparing the structure of
Gk. comedy with that of the kerygma of Paul and Mark than with humour as such); G. Webster,
Laughter in the Bible, 1960; D. Zuver, Salvation by Laughter, 1933.
(b). H. von Campenhausen, ‘‘Ein Witz des Apostels Paulus und die Anfange des christlichen
Humors’’, in Neutestamentliche Studien fiir Rudolf Bultmann, BZNW 21, (1954) 19572, 189-93;
‘“‘Christentum und Humor’’, ThR 27, 1961, 65-82; H. Clavier, ‘“La méthode ironique dans |’en-
seignement de Jesus”, Etudes Théologiques et Religieuses, 1929-30; ‘‘L’ironie dans l’enseignement
de Jésus”, NovT 1, 1956, 3-20; “‘L’ironie dans le quatriéme Evangile’’, Studia Evangelica, 1959,
ed. K. Aland, F. L. Cross, J. Daniélou, H. Riesenfeld, W. C. van Unnik, TU 73 261-76; and ‘‘Les
sens multiples dans le Nouveau Testament’’, NovT 2, 1958, 185-98; P. Friedlander, “‘Lachende
G6otter”’, Die Antike 10, 3, 1934; J. Kruuse, Humorister, 1945; R. Voeltzel, Le Rire du Seigneur,
1955.
Law, Custom, Elements
The social life of man requires structure and commonly recognized rules of con-
duct. Within this context, the Gk. word with the widest range of meaning is nomos,
which originally denoted a system for distributing property, based upon collective
agreement. Then it acquired the more general sense of a commonly agreed public
order, or, in the plur., the laws that regulate life. However, nomos or the plur.
nomoi has a religious basis, being anchored in transcendence and therefore claiming
absolute validity, either as authoritative divine commands or as cosmic principles.
ethos, on the other hand, is usage or custom (unwritten but not therefore any less
plain or valid), i.e. that which is normally done. In the NT it also means the custom
of the priesthood. stoicheion denoted originally the line or rank in which one
stands, hence the basic order to which one has to conform. The stoicheia are
therefore the elements, the basic constituents of the cosmic and the human order.
> E0oc (ethos), usage, custom; 700c¢ (éthos), custom, way of
tGo¢ life.
CL 1. ethos, found from Aeschylus onwards, stems from the root sweth (cf. Lat.
suetus, accustomed, customary; Ger. Sitte, custom and means tradition, wont,
usage, custom. With the prepositions ex, kata, dia, en or the instrumental dative it
436
LAW
means “‘‘according to [these] principles” or “in the usual way”’.
2. The related word éthos, since Homer, is a rather more abstract term, not
easily distinguishable in English, however, from ethos.
oT In the canonical text of the OT neither word has any real Heb. equivalents;
nevertheless, in the LXX éthos occurs 7 times and ethos 8 times.
1. The Heb. form k*mispat is translated by ethos in a few places, including Jdg.
18:7 v.23; 1 Ki. 18:28 v.l.: “according to the [popular, Gentile] custom’’, “‘after
the manner of... .”’ ethos is used thus in the sense of popular custom and particu-
larly in connection with — feasts. In the extra-canonical writings the word always
refers to a custom traditional within a given class or nation: e.g., giving presents
to members of the royal family (1 Macc. 10:89); the custom of the ancestors (2
Macc. 11:25; 4 Macc. 18:5) or of the priests (Dan. Bel. 15 v./.); customs relating
to execution (2 Macc. 13:4), or to public worship. Even when a custom is reversed,
the resulting custom can come to be ethically and legally binding (4 Macc. 18:5;
Wis. 14:16, hos nomos, as a law; — nomos).
2. In the LXX éthos ordinarily conveys the idea of basic human motives or
attitudes (4 Macc. 1:29; 2:7; 2:21; 5:24), a frame of mind (4 Macc. 13:27); also a
manner of life resulting from certain ethical or psychological impulses, e.g.,
directly from the law (Sir. Prol. 27, v./. ennomos;—» nomos NT) or from virtue (4
Macc. 13:27 see above); or, negatively, from a general attitude of deceit (Sir.
20:26).
NT In the NT the two words are found 13 times altogether (éthos only once, 1.e.
1 Cor. 15:33; ethos 3 times in Lk., 7 times in Acts, once in Jn., once in Heb.). The
range of meaning extends from religious custom (frequently indistinguishable from
popular mores) to personal habit, although no hard and fast distinctions can be
drawn. Some passages merely give objective information on customs or traditions,
while others reflect the clash of early Christian teaching and practice with the way
of life found in traditional Judaism and late antiquity. It is helpful to consider
these groups separately.
In the narrative sections of the Gospels ethos is variously qualified as the custom
of the priesthood (Lk. 1:9); the custom relating to the Passover and to the educa-
tion of sons (Lk. 2:42; when the son reaches puberty at the age of 12, the father
has the duty of introducing him to the requirements of God’s law by taking him to
the three great — feasts); Jewish burial custom (Jn. 19:40); or Christ’s personal
custom, e.g. of visiting the synagogue (Lk. 4:16, kata to eidthos auto, ‘“‘as his custom
was”’; cf. Acts 17:2) or, as a festival pilgrim, of teaching daily in the temple and
spending the following night near the Mount of Olives outside the city (Lk. 22:39),
a custom with a long tradition behind it, making it easy for Judas and the temple
officers to locate him.
The following passages introduce us to early Christian polemic: Acts 15:1, the
confrontation between Jewish and Gentile Christians over the necessity of cir-
cumcision (note the appeal is to the custom of — Moses [cf. Lev. 12:3], not to that
of — Abraham [cf. Gen. 17:10]); previously Stephen (Acts 6:14) and subsequently
Paul (Acts 26:3; 28:17) were accused of altering the customs delivered by Moses
or the fathers; cf. the charge against Jesus that he wished to annul the law (Mk.
2:23 ff.; 3:2 ff.; 7:14 f.; Matt. 5:18, 21). Paul’s opponents accused him of being
437
LAW
the enemy both of the — people and of the law (cf. nomos NT) and of endangering
both by his sectarian activities (Acts 21:28; 24:5). Paul himself appealed to Roman
legal custom (Acts 25:16; cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, ‘“‘Paul before Felix and Festus’’,
Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963, 48-70). An appeal to
Roman political and religious law was also made by the Roman slave-owners at
Philippi (Acts 16:21) against what they conceived to be Jewish customs and relli-
gious propaganda. For Romans were forbidden to become proselytes of the
Jewish religion which was a religio licita, legally recognized religion, and Philippi
was a Roman colonia (cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 496; A. N.
Sherwin-White, op. cit., 78 f., 177).
Finally, the use of éthos and ethos shows something of the internal dangers
facing the early Christian church: the church is doomed if it allows itself to be
infected by the immoral habits of the surrounding world (éthos, 1 Cor. 15:33). Here
Paul cites the saying from the 4th cent. comedy Thais by Menander, “‘Bad company
ruins good morals.” Heb. 10:25 states that for some people non-attendance at
public worship had already become a habit (ethos), an attitude of indifference which
the church must seek to overcome by spiritual exhortation, pointing out the
imminence of the day of judgment. H.-H. Esser
——— sage voploc (nomos), law, norm; vopikdc (nomikos), pertaining
| Bos | to the law, learned in the law, hence legal expert, jurist,
lawyer; vopii@c (nomimos), conforming to the law, according to rule;
voLodiddoKadoc (nomodidaskalos), teacher of the law; vouo@ecia (nomothesia),
lawgiving, legislation; vouodeté@ (nomotheted), make laws, legislate, ordain,
enact; vowodétyc (nomothetés), lawgiver; avopia (anomia), lawlessness; dvojoc
(anomos), lawless, unlawful; évvoyioc (ennomos), under law, orderly; mapavopéw
(paranomeo), break the law, act contrary to the law.
CL 1. (a) The noun nomos is formed from the vb. nemo, distribute, deal out,
assign, grant, especially in the sense of assigning property, apportioning pasture
or agricultural land (cf. nomé, pasture). In other words, the reference is to those
processes which are essential whenever men live together in a community, whether
small or great. Relationships to earthly possessions have to be determined in a
legally binding fashion, so that private and communal ownership may become a
reality. Thus the basic vb. covers all shades of meaning from merely handing some-
thing over for a given period of time, right through to transferring something, once
and for all, to the ownership of another person. By means of appropriate preposi-
tions, personal or non-personal objects, and other qualifying phrases, ethical value-
judgment can be expressed: to grant equally, exercise fairness, be impartial, also
to favour, pass over, reject. The same vb. can also indicate the result of distributing
property: to appropriate, own or possess, occupy, utilize; pass. to belong to. The
communal aspect can still be seen in the mid.: to distribute (e.g. an inheritance)
between one another.
(b) The fig. sense covers the idea of guarding what has been entrusted: to watch
over, protect; and also the way the recipient is regarded by the person who distri-
butes: to esteem, regard as, take for, respect.
438
LAW
2. In the same way, the word nomos (found in literature from the time of Hesiod,
7th cent. B.C.) originally referred to distributing and what follows from it. It meant
that which has been laid down, ordered or assigned; but more particularly the
results of this, namely arrangements which become regularized and attain the
status of tradition. The word therefore denotes custom, usage, statute, law,
especially in the context of distribution of goods, and of law and order.
The legal, ethical and religious meanings of nomos are inseparable in antiquity,
for all goods were believed to come from the gods, who upheld order in the uni-
verse and in relations between men. Hence, the universal conviction, found through-
out history, that law is linked to the divine —an idea which has persisted sub-
consciously even in periods when the purely human aspects of law have been
emphasized (see below). The close interrelationship between the worship of the
gods, the customs of the time and one’s duty to the state was expressed in the
charge levelled at Socrates, namely that he failed to reverence the gods officially
worshipped (nomizein) by the city, or at least that he did not worship them as
everyone else did (Plato, Apol. 24b; — Godliness, art. sebomai).
3. Used in a political context, nomos was regarded as the most essential feature
of the polis or city-state, i.e. the judicial norm, legal custom, the “‘law of the land.”
From about the Sth cent. B.c. onwards, the nomos was written down as nomoi
(plur. laws), thereby acquiring the specific meaning of written law, the constitution
(of the polis), the coercive law of the state, which had to be obeyed upon pain of
punishment. This purely political view of nomos led to relativization and an
increasingly man-centred approach to law. Many Gk. tragedies rest on the fact that
one law stands over against another, both claiming validity but mutually incom-
patible. Hence, men are caught in the toils of such conflict, as in Sophocles’ Antigone.
Indeed, nomos is sometimes even disparaged as a human exaggeration, compared
with physis (— Nature) or universal law.
4. Philosophy (even that of the Sophists), kept alive the awareness that, since
human laws are so fallible, man cannot exist unless he conforms to cosmic, univer-
sal law. Only when a man is inwardly in harmony with the universe does he have
peace of mind amid the vicissitudes of life (as the Stoics). Whereas the Sophists
criticized the idea of absolute validity attaching to nomos, Plato and Aristotle
each in his own way connected it with the nous, the human spirit, and thereby
once again with the divine (cf. H. Kleinknecht, TDNT IV 1032). The period of late
antiquity in the time of the NT suffered from no longer having a nomos of binding
force throughout the known world. Most of the gnostic systems sought to project
earthly law into the higher sphere of the ground of all being. This represented a
wistful attempt to regain, by religious means, the lost unity of law itself and of life
lived under the law.
OT 1. In the LXX nomos occurs about 430 times, of which about 200 are without
Heb. equivalents; for the rest, the commonest equivalent is téradh, with dat
occurring 16 times and hdqg, huqqgah 12 times. In the canonical OT, nomos is con-
centrated most heavily in the Pentateuchal books other than Gen., occurring
about 60 times, of which 25 are in Deut. and 20 in Lev. Next come Ezra and
Nehemiah, if one counts the apocryphal | Esd. (53 times), then the Pss. (40 times,
of which 27 are in Ps. 119 (LXX 118). Among the prophets Jer. uses the word most
439
LAW
frequently (15 times). The frequent use of the word in the extra-canonical books
"(it occurs about 100 times in the Books of the Maccabees and 30 times in Sir.)
indicates the importance of law in the Judaistic thought of the last two centuries
B.c. Of the derivatives (see NT below) only anomia (lawlessness; about 150 times)
and anomos (lawless; about 50 times) are numerically significant in the LXX.
2. This paragraph deals with those passages in the LXX where térdh is trans-
lated by nomos. It is important to note that térah frequently does not mean “law”
in the modern sense of the term. At a time when the Jews saw “‘law”’ as the tran-
script of an eternal norm, and the Greeks likewise thought of nomos as having
definite content, the predominant use of the latter word must have produced a
striking translation.
(a) Originally t6rah (mostly used in the sing.) meant an instruction from God, a
command for a given situation. The plur. which also occurs indicates the con-
creteness and variability of such instructions (cf. Exod. 16:28; 18:16, 20, translated,
significantly enough, by ton nomon, “‘the law’’, in all three places). Instruction for
given situations was also given by the prophets (Isa. 1:10; 5:24 and passim; Mic.
4:2; Jer. 6:19), by the priests (Hos. 4:6; Jer. 2:8; Deut. 17:9, 11; Ezek. 7:26) or bya
judge (Deut. 17:9, 11 f.). The prophets threatened judgment on those priests and
prophets who issued their own instruction without having received it from Yahweh _
(Jer. 2:8; 8:8; Zeph. 3:4; Ezek. 22:26).
(b) Human counsel given by a teacher of wisdom (Prov. 13:14; 28:4, 7, 9) can
also be called torah and nomos.
(c) Nearer the concept of law are the specific instructions for the different kinds
of offering (Lev. 6 and passim); or for a definite priestly procedure (Num. 5:29,
when adultery is suspected); or with regard to the Nazirites (Num. 6:13, 21).
(d) Only after the Deuteronomic reform did phrases such as “‘the law of Yahweh”’
become widespread, epitomizing the laws in general, and without any further
qualification or any enumeration of the individual laws involved (2 Ki. 10:31;
Exod. 13:9; Amos 2:4, a Deuteronomic expansion of a Yahwistic basic text;
Jer. 8:8 and passim); similarly “the law of God’’ (Jos. 24:26 and passim), delivered
by Moses (Jos. 8:31 [LXX 9:2]; 2 Ki. 23:25 and passim). Deut. is itself called “‘the
book of this law” (Deut. 28:61; cf. 29:20; 30:10; 31:26; cf. G. von Rad, Old
Testament Theology, I, 1962, 221; Jos. 1:8; 2 Ki. 22:8, 11), and after the Exile the
whole Pentateuch is so called (Neh. 8:3). Corresponding to this is the formula
“written in the law’’, found in the post-exilic literature (Neh. 8:14; 10:35 [LXX
34], 37 [LXX 36]; Dan. 9:11; 2 Chr. 23:18 and passim), where the law is seen as a
written norm.
(e) The verbs used in connection with térdh indicate whether the latter is con-
ceived of as oral instruction or as written law. Oral instruction is presupposed by
such formulae as: to teach instruction (Exod. 18:20); to hear it (Isa. 42:24); to
forget it (Hos. 4:6); to despise it (Isa. 5:24); to violate it (Hos. 8:1). On the other
hand, the following phrases indicate written law: to observe, to keep the law (Ps.
119 [LXX 118]:34, 44; Prov. 28:4 and passim); to — walk in the law, i.e. to order
one’s life by the law (Exod. 16:14; Ps. 78 [LXX 77]:10; 119 [LXX 118]:1; 2 Chr.
6:16 and passim).
3. hog denotes: (a) Yahweh’s sacrificial requirement, his right to receive sacrifice
(Lev. 6:15 [LXX 22]); or (b) the legal system proclaimed in the cult, to which
440
LAW
Israel is bound (Jos. 24:25; cf. A. Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and
Religion, 1966, 126; G. von Rad, op. cit., I, 30). The fem. Augqdh (in the plur.
huqqot) has the meaning: (a) creation ordinances, laws of nature (Jer. 31[LXX 38]:
36); (b) the ordinance of the passover (Exod. 12:43; Num. 9:3, 14 and passim;
[— Feast, art. pascha]); (c) statutes regulating everyday life (Lev. 19:19, 37); (d)
sacrificial ordinances (Jer. 44 [LXX 51]: 23).
4. The equivalent dat occurs only in the late OT writings, always denoting a
written law: either (a) the law of God (Ezr. [LXX 2 Esd.] 7:12, 14, 21, 25, 26; Dan.
6:6 [LXX 6:5]; here identical with religion, worship of God); 7:25; Est. 3:8
(plur. interpreted as the laws of the people); or (b) the law or decree of the king
(Ezr. 7:26; Est. 1:8, 13, 15, 19, 3:8; 4:16).
5. This survey is sufficient to show that we cannot speak simply of ‘‘the law in the
OT” as if it expressed a uniform concept, much less of the OT itself as law. Even
in the Pentateuch the later generic term térdh or law is an example of the part
standing for the whole (see above 2 (d)). There are essentially three types of ‘‘law’”’
to be distinguished:
(a) Casuistic law, which was pre-Israelite in origin, and was largely taken over
after the conquest from Canaanite legal custom. It has its setting “‘in the gate’’,
where the law was administered. Large sections of the Book of the Covenant (Exod.
21:1-23:19) contain such lists of laws, each with the characteristic form: “‘if.. .
then... .”
(b) Apodeictic law, which is of genuine Israelite origin, stemming from the period
when the tribes were still mobile, and set out in thematic series of ten or twelve for
ease of memorizing: “‘he that... shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 21:12. 15 ff.
and passim); or “J am Yahweh...thou shalt not...” (as in the Decalogue,
Exod. 20:2 ff.; ~ Command). Here the setting 1s the worshipping community,
especially at the feast of the covenant and the feast of the renewal of the covenant;
such law “‘watches over man in his humanity” (G. von Rad, op. cit., I, 195). In the
OT, incidentally, the Ten Commandments were never called “‘law”’ (ibid.).
(c) Purely cultic regulations, to be carried out and expounded by the — priests
(see above 2 (c); cf. also Hag. 2:11 [LXX 12]).
The law inherent in such passages is part and parcel of the — covenant. It is the
rule of life for those who have been redeemed (see the First Commandment, which
is the basis of the other nine). It sets out “‘the obedience of men who have come of
age’ (von Rad, op. cit., I, 198; cf. Deut. 30:14). The commandments “‘were not a
law, but an event, with which Jahweh specifically confronted every generation in
its own hic et nunc [here and now], and to which it had to take up its position” (op.
cit., 199). The law thus had a prophetic character. This original view of law changed
in the post-exilic period, when the community was considered to be actually
constituted by the law (Neh. 8). The law came to be viewed as a set of rigid rules,
instead of serving the community as an ordinance of salvation. (On the whole
subject see G. von Rad, op. cit., I, 187-279 and the various works listed in the
bibliography below.)
6. For the Qumran sect’s view of law —-> Command, art. entolé, oT 3.
7. (a) In the Judaism of the last two centuries B.c. and at the time of Jesus nomos
was used in an absolute sense: the law was an absolute in itself and was independent
of the covenant. It is fulfilment of the law that determines one’s membership of the
44]
LAW
people of God. Israel no longer saw her special status as due to Yahweh’s living
self-revelation in the course of her history, but considered this status to rest upon
the obedience of those who were righteous in terms of the law (— Pharisees).
Visible observance of the law was what distinguished the true Israel both from
non-Jews and from the godless Jewish masses. In other words, the law had assumed
a dominant role as mediator between God and man, and had become personified
as an intermediary with a hypostasis of its own. The whole of life could be regula-
ted, and was regulated by the law. In Hellenistic Judaism especially, the law came
to stand alongside — wisdom, which had likewise come to be seen as having a
hypostasis. In this respect the law had become separated from its original setting,
namely the — covenant as given by God. Moreover, it could now be presented as
universal law, i.e. as universally valid. This was important in the Hellenistic world,
where any system of thought had to be able to compete apologetically with existing
philosophies. Furthermore, its universality was extended backwards in time. The
patriarchs, it was claimed, already knew it, in fact it antedated the whole of creation.
By universalizing the law in this way and detaching it from the covenant, Hellen-
ized Jews were able to give it a rational basis and proclaim it as a superior philo-
sophy (— Command, art. dogma oT). The method they adopted was to allegorize it,
which involved cutting it loose from its historical roots.
(b) Similarly, Rabbinic Judaism no longer saw God’s self-revelation as tied to
the covenant, but rather to the Torah as a covenant ordinance. Thus the Torah
came to occupy the place of a “‘canon within the canon’’, even before the latter
was finally determined; i.e. the Torah became normative over against the other two
sections of the OT, namely the Prophets and the Writings. These were held merely
to develop what was already germinally present in the Torah. Israel believed that
the Torah (identical with the Pentateuch) had been delivered ready-made by God
to Moses. God had committed himself to it, but not only so, he is eternally com-
mitted to it. Man’s life and death hung upon fulfilling its commands, and with it
his religious pride and shame (see Lk. 18:9-14). The Torah was regarded as
capable of fulfilment. As an aid towards this goal, use was made both of casuistry
and of summaries of the law in the form of a few commandments or of one basic
commandment. Rabbi Hillel (c. 20 B.c.) instructed a proselyte: ““What you do not
like, do not do to your neighbour. That is the whole Torah, everything else is
merely interpretation; go and study it’ (Shab. 3la; cf. SB I 460). The dictum states
the negative counterpart of the Golden Rule in Matt. 7:12. Rabbi Hillel also claimed
that Amos (5:4) and Hab. (2:4) reduced the Torah to one commandment (Mak.
23b-24a; cf. W. Gutbrod, TDNT IV 1058 f.). In the Judaism of the time of Christ,
the study and fulfilment of the Torah were considered to be the way to righteousness
and the way to —> life (cf. Lk. 10:28).
NT In the NT the noun nomos (191 times) occurs most frequently in Paul: 119
times, predominantly in Rom. (72 times), Gal. (32), 1 Cor. (9). Non-Pauline
books where the word occurs fairly frequently are Acts (17 times), Jn. and Heb.
(14 each), Jas. (10), Lk. (9), Matt. (8). nomos does not occur in MK., in the Catholic
Epistles apart from Jas., or in Rev. Its infrequent appearance in the Synoptic
Gospels should not blind us to the fact that Jesus dealt intensively with the whole
problem of the law (cf. Mk. 2:23-28; 10:1-12 and passim).
442
LAW
1. The summaries of Christ’s work as given in Jn. 1:17 and Eph. 2:14-18 also
apply to his own preaching. In all that he said and did, he removed the law from its
mediatorial position and opened up immediate access to God (cf. especially the
group of parables in Lk. 15; also 18:9-27; Matt. 11 :28-30 and many other synop-
tic passages).
(a) His testimony to the significance of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:7—19) is
enhanced to become an indirect testimony to himself (vv. 11-15): the Baptist is
— Elyah come again (v. 14), who brings one divine dispensation to an end, and
proclaims the arrival of a new one where the kingdom of God comes directly
among men (cf. Mal. 4:5; Matt. 17:10-13; Jn. 1:21; Lk. 1:17). Thus the preaching
and teaching of the prophets and of the law reaches its > goal (v. 13) and comes to
an end. “The prophets and the law” here are regarded to some extent formally as
constituent parts of the OT scriptures, but the main reference is to their content
as salvation history. The wording here draws attention not only to the precedence
accorded to the prophets over the law, but also to the dynamic view of both:
they proclaim, preach, prophesy (prophéteuein; — Prophecy). The parallel passage
in Lk. 16:16 makes a point of inserting these words of Jesus into the whole scheme
of salvation history: “‘law and prophets until John” (note the absence of a vb.).
From that point onwards the — kingdom of God is proclaimed directly, like the
news of great victory (euangelizetai; — Gospel).
Similarly, in the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:21-48) Jesus
put an end to all self-satisfaction at having kept individual commandments of the
law (vv. 20, 46). He dealt with them radically by pointing out that at root they
require absolute conformity to the requirements of the divine majesty in thought
as well as in deed (vv. 20, 48). Thus he made the unprecedented claim that what
was said in the law to the men of old (vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) is now made out of
date once and for all by himself: “But I say unto you....” (v. 22, 28, 32, 34, 39,
44). In the eyes of those who did not acknowledge him as bringing in God’s
kingdom or recognize his teaching as being the rule of life for the church of the
last days, this claim must have made his condemnation for seeking to abolish the
law (v. 17) a foregone conclusion.
(b) Jesus makes it clear at this point, however, that his claim was not levelled
against the law (Matt. 5:17-19), but against man’s self-righteous attitude to the
law (vv. 19-20; cf. Paul in Rom. 7:12). He set himself to fulfil in detail the law’s de-
mand for a life of utter obedience to God (v. 17; cf. 3:15), as he had done already
from his circumcision onwards, and continued to do until his death on the cross.
Even his condemnation was in accordance with established Jewish law (cf. Jn. 19:7).
The inviolability of the law (Matt. 5:18; cf. Lk. 16:17) likewise determined Christ’s
attitude in conversation with the teachers of the law (nomikoi), who were specialists
in the ethical interpretation of the law, and the theological leaders of the —
Pharisees. Jesus shared the view that the law could be summed up in two great
commandments (Matt. 22:34—39; cf. Lk. 10:25-28), but he rejected the Pharisees’
gradations within the double commandment. (On the two great commandments —
Command, art. entolé; — Hear, art. akoud; — Large, Small, art. megas.) Moreover,
in his repeated cries of ““Woe to you!” (Matt. 23 :13-16, 23, 25, 27, 29; cf. Lk. 11:42 ff.
46 f., 52) he condemned their failure to recognize the basic intention of the law,
namely — justice, — mercy and — faith (Matt. 23:23).
443
LAW
(c) In the words of Jesus and in the usage of Matt. and Lk. the reference is
generally to the whole law as a part of Scripture, without any further delineation of
content. (This does not apply, of course, to verbatim quotations from the Torah.)
Thus: “the law” (Matt. 5:18; 12:5; Lk. 2:27; 10:26; 16:17); “the law and the
prophets” (Matt. 5:17; see above | (a)); “‘the law of the Lord” (Lk. 2:23, 24, 39);
“the law of Moses” (Lk. 2:22; cf. also Acts 28:23 “...and the prophets’’);
“Moses and the prophets’ (Lk. 24:27). The threefold formula “‘Moses and the
prophets and the psalms” also occurs (Lk. 24:44),
2. Paul, confronted as he was by his own Pharisaic past and by his Jewish and
Jewish Christian opponents, developed a theology of the law that is connected
historically with the promise and on a personal level with Christ. In doing so,
however, he is far from regarding himself as a second teacher of Christianity either
in addition to, or in place of Jesus. His teaching remains within the limits pre-
viously laid down by Jesus; he merely brings out the basic significance of Christ’s
work, now completed in the — cross and — resurrection. As Lk. 10:25-37 shows,
it is possible to keep the law fully (v. 37) only by being in fellowship with him,
listening to his loving voice, and — following him. In the same way, after his
resurrection, it is only the man who is “in Christ’ who can keep the law, not with
any thought of works-righteousness, but rather out of gratitude and in the liberty
of one set free to love and obey. Paul also follows Jesus (see above 1 (a)) in denying
the absoluteness of the law and the idea that it alone was the way to salvation (see
below (a)-(d)). He took this position, however, not because of any emotional
complexes arising from his being a converted Pharisee (cf. Phil. 3:5-11), but be-
cause he saw the uniqueness and newness of Christ. As the ~ Apostle to the
Gentiles, he has the prophetic insight to realize that without a comprehensive
theology of law as a background, the universal claims of the — gospel would lack
all justification and credibility (see Rom. and Gal.).
Paul used nomos for the Pentateuch (Rom. 3:21b; Gal. 4:21) and for the whole
of Scripture (Rom. 3:19, a generic term for the quotations of vv. 10-18, taken from
all three parts of Scripture: 1 Cor. 14:21 citing Isa. 28:11 f. and Deut. 28:49), but
especially for the Mosaic law, and the Decalogue in particular (Rom. 2:14a; 2:17;
3:28; 7:12; Gal. 5:3) in its demand for unconditional obedience from the Jews.
Rom. 2:14b is to be translated “The Gentiles are law to themselves” (RSV),
because the implication is that God has given them the law in another way (cf.
v. 15). ({Ed.] Karl Barth has argued, however, that this passage refers to Gentile
converts who, in fulfilment of the prophecy of the new covenant in Jer. 31:33, have
the law “‘written on their hearts”’ [cf. CD I, 2, 304; II, 2, 242, 604; IV, I, 33, 369,
395; J. B. Soucek, “Zur Exegese von Rom. 2:14 ff.” in Antwort. Karl Barth zum
siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. E. Wolf, C. von Kirschbaum, R. Frey, 1956, 99—113].)
Paul also uses nomos to indicate a part of the law (e.g. marriage law, as it affects
the woman, Rom. 7:2b), and in the metaphorical sense, mostly defined by a
genitive (e.g. Rom. 3:28, divine commands in the widest sense; Rom. 7:23c, 25b;
8:2; Gal. 6:2, genitive of authorship; Rom. 7:23 a and b, regular principle). Paul
often personifies the law: it speaks (Rom. 3:19); it says (Rom. 7:7; 1 Cor. 9:8); it
works (Rom. 4:15); it rules (Rom. 7:1). In doing this, he is not subscribing to the
idea of law as a hypostasis (see above OT 7), but he means that the law is the mouth-
piece of the living God.
444
LAW
Paul views the law against the background of the — cross of Christ. (a) In his
death on the cross Jesus upheld the law’s condemnation of all men. He became a
curse (Gal. 3:13; cf. Deut. 21:23). He was made sin, yet only as the representative
for the sins of others (2 Cor. 5:21; cf.: “che was reckoned with the transgressors’’,
meta anomon, Lk. 22:37; Mk. 15:28; both quoting Isa. 53:12). These statements
indicate a deliberate, vicarious act by Jesus on our behalf.
(b) At the same time he fulfils all the obedience required by the law (Phil. 2:8).
Paul’s addition of the words ‘“‘even death on a cross” in v. 8b to what was probably
an already existing hymn stresses Christ’s complete oneness with those enslaved
under the law. (On this hymn see R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Phil. ii. 5-11 in
Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, 1967; —> Empty,
art. kenos.) Now that he has fulfilled the law, salvation rests not on our meeting
certain conditions, but upon the simple fact that the law has now been fulfilled
(Rom. 3:31).
(c) Having — faith, the Christian is no longer under the law (1 Cor. 9:20b).
He is free to be “‘as one outside the law [anomos] to those outside the law [anomois]”’
(note the play on words in the four-fold use of this adj., v. 21). He is also free to
fulfil the law in —> love (Rom. 13:10b; Gal. 5:14, 22), to be as one under the law
(1 Cor. 9:20) to those under the law, i.e. the Jews. The author and inspirer of such
love is the Holy — Spirit of God and of Christ, who translates the Christian from
the realm of the law and the — flesh with its resulting — sin and —> death (Rom.
8:4; Gal. 5:18, 22).
(d) Since Christ is the end and — goal (te/os) of the law for believers (Rom.
10:4), Paul can look back from his vantage-point, as it were, and describe the
law, both as having no more part to play in salvation, and at the same time as
having a valid function apart from Christ (Rom. 5:20 f.; Gal. 3:19-29). The law,
which is holy and good (Rom. 7:12), was one of God’s gifts to Israel (Rom. 9:4,
here nomothesia means the giving of the law). It came in (Rom. 5:20), being intro-
duced by God into the history of sinful man (Gal. 3:19) in order to “increase the
trespass”’ (Rom. 5:20; cf. 7:8-13; 1 Cor. 15:56b; — Command, art. entolé NT
2 (a)), and in order to ‘“‘confine” men under law and sin, with no prospect of escape
until Christ should come (Gal. 3:22 f.) — a dreadful thought, were it not for God’s
superabundant grace (Rom. 5:20b) and his gift of sonship (Gal. 3:25 ff.)!
(e) The individual who stands before God “‘under the law” (en nomd, Rom. 2:12b)
has to reckon with the following consequences: the law demands entire obedience
(Gal. 3:10, quoting Deut. 27:26); only he who does the law will live and be justified
(Gal. 3:12b, quoting Lev. 18:5; Rom. 2:13b), while he who does not is con-
demned (Gal. 3:10; Rom. 2:12b). No one is justified before God merely by hearing
or knowing the law (Rom. 2:12, 13a). To be justified one needs to be made alive,
which is precisely where the law fails (Gal. 3:21; Rom. 7:9 f.); only those who
have faith in Christ are made alive (Gal. 3:26 f.). Thus law is linked with — sin,
and —> faith with — promise. However, the law is not contrary to the promise
(Gal. 3:17), rather it has an educational part to play, both within redemptive
history and in individual experience, driving men to Christ and to faith in him.
The law is a paidagogos, ‘“‘custodian”’ (Gal. 3:24, 25; RSV). The word means lit.
““‘boy-leader”’. The paidagégos was usually a slave whose duty it was to take the
pupil to school and supervise his conduct generally (Arndt, 608; — Teach, art.
445
LAW
paideud). The law produces the startling realization of sin which does not save
(Rom. 3:20; 7:7); but it calls forth a cry for help in one’s lost condition (Rom.
7:24), a cry which can be answered effectively only by Jesus Christ (Rom. 7:25).
(f) Even the man who sins “‘without the law’’, i.e. one before Christ came, or
outside the bounds of Christianity, does not conform to the will of God (Rom.
3:23; note the twofold use in Rom. 2:12a of the adv. anomds, found only here in
the NT). Outside the law men are judged by God according to whether they
have done right (Rom. 2:6 f.), for the Gentiles can know what is good, the work
of the law being written in their hearts (v. 15; cf. 1:32). Thus a Jew who does the
law is in the same position as a Gentile who does good works (vv. 13, 7), while a
Jew who sins under the law is in the same position as all men, whether Jew or
Gentile, who do evil (vv. 12b, 9). Whether they live within the Jewish law, or out-
side, it both groups will meet with the same — judgment, without respect of persons
(vv. ll f., 16), according to their works. Destruction and death await all men
(Rom. 3:23, 27; 7:10, llc, 13), for no one has put into practice his knowledge of
what is good (3:23; 7:18 f., 21). All men, therefore, depend for salvation upon the
work of Christ which has to be appropriated by faith (Rom. 3:25 f., 29 f.), without
the works of the law (v. 28), and also without the participation (choris) of the law
(v. 21). The words “But now” introduce a totally new situation.
(g) This indicates the fundamental weakness of the law, namely that its only
answer to sin is to forbid it and condemn it. Law cannot overcome sin, because it
depends on the co-operation of the — flesh, which is weak (Rom. 8:3). Here “‘the
flesh’? means would-be autonomous human nature, incapable of obedience. The
law is part of the fabric of this world (— stoicheia), and therefore cannot lead us
beyond it. What the law demands can be wrought only by the Spirit on the basis
of the work of Christ (v. 4; see above (e)). The law is essentially a letter that kills,
while the life of the new covenant is the — Spirit who makes alive (Rom. 7:6; 2
Cor. 3:6).
(h) The commandment to love, which can be fulfilled in the Spirit (see above (c)
and (g)), can now be called the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2; cf. 1 Cor. 9:21: to be
ennomos of Christ, to be under the law of Christ). It is the Torah of the Lord, which
he himself has lived out. Now, on raising men to spiritual life, he can require of
them its fulfilment.
(i) Occasionally the law is invoked as a secondary authority, in order to provide
scriptural support for Paul’s injunctions to the Christian church. In 1 Cor. 9:8 ff.
he makes allegorical use of Deut. 25:4 to back up his claim that, as an apostle,
he had the right to be materially supported by the church. In 1 Cor. 14:21 he
combines quotations from Deut. 28:49 and Isa. 28:11 f. in order to regulate speak-
ing with tongues, and in | Cor. 14:34 he refers to Gen. 3:16 to support his com-
mand that women be silent in the church, a command which is probably not meant
to apply generally, but specifically to speaking with tongues: women are not to push
in themselves forward in this matter. Basically, however, the life of the church is
controlled not by the principle: ““Anything contrary to the law is sin’, but rather
by ‘Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin’ (Rom. 14:23).
3. In Eph. (which some scholars count as deutero-Pauline) and the Pastoral
Epistles there are statements which are in complete accord with Paul’s theology
of the law, but also some others which show that controversy had now arisen over
446
LAW
the law’s function and which prima facie uphold the law as a regulative principle.
(a) Eph. 2:15 is fully in line with Paul’s doctrine of the law (see above 2 (b) and
especially - Command art. dogma NT).
(b) In the struggle against (gnostic?) libertinism and asceticism 1 Tim. 1:8
repeats the assertion of Rom. 7:12 that the law is good. But whereas Rom. de-
velops the réle of the law in provoking and convicting of sin, | Tim. 1:9 f. enumer-
ates various categories of sin condemned by the law. Christ has appeared “‘to deliver
us from all lawlessness [anomia]” (Tit. 2:14, quoting Ps. 130:8). The law is ‘‘a rule
of life which is self-evident to the respectable man; the others [the anomoi, the lawless]
experience it rightly as compulsion” (M. Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe, ed. H. Conzel-
mann, HNT 13, 19664 on | Tim. 1:9). The “‘just’’ in this verse no longer appears to be
a man justified by — faith (cf. Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). In Rom. Paul did not say that
the law is good when it is used lawfully (nomimos); for his position regarding the
law’s absolute holiness, and also regarding the use of the law, see Rom. 7:12 ff. The
false teachers of the law (nomodidaskaloi, 1 Tim. 1:7) are those who preach
antinomianism (as here) and also those who lead the church astray with their
ascetic demands (1 Tim. 4:1-3). This passage is thoroughly Pauline in its exhorta-
tion to receive God’s good gifts of creation in a spirit of faith and thanksgiving,
and not to stand aloof from them in the interests of certain ascetic regulations.
Like 1 Tim., Tit. 3:9 recommends the avoidance of quarrels about the law (machas
nomikas). The Gk. background is apparent in the use of nomikos, lawyer (Tit. 3:13)
and of nomimos, according to the rules of the contest (2 Tim. 2:5). In the apocalyp-
tic section 2 Thess. 2:1-12 the fact that Christ’s return has not yet occurred is
explained in Jewish apocalyptic fashion as follows: the man of lawlessness (anthro-
pos tés anomias, v. 3) or the lawless one (anomos, v. 8) must first appear, and the
mystery of lawlessness, although already at work, is not yet revealed (v. 7; cf. Matt.
24:12; see A. Oepke, Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher, NTD 8, 19651 ad loc.; L.
Morris, The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, NLC, 1959, 217-32; — Anti-
christ; — Present: The Parousia Eschatology in the NT).
4. In his logical development of Pauline thought the writer of Heb. sees the law,
especially the sacrificial law, as a manifestation of the old — covenant, inferior to
and now superseded by the new covenant (8:13; 10:9b). There are extensive
passages proving the superiority of the single, once-for-all — sacrifice of Christ,
the great High Priest, over the offerings of the OT priests, a sacrifice, moreover, in
which he himself is both the offering and the offerer (4:14-5:10; 7:1-10, 18; cf.
also the Moses-Christ typology of 3:1-6).
Thus in working out his teaching on inferiority and superiority, the writer puts
nomos in the negative part of his comparisons: cf. 7:5 with 7:6-8 (— Melchizedek
as a type of Christ, and the contrast “‘those descendants of Levi who receive the
priestly office... but this man...”); 7:12 with 7:13 ff.; 7:16a with 7:15, 16b,
“not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent’’; 7:19a with 19b,
“the law made nothing perfect ... on the other hand, a better hope’’; 7:28a with
7:28b, ‘“‘the law men appointed in their weakness .. . but the word of the oath...
appoints a Son’’; 8:4 f. with 8:5b and 6, “priests who offer gifts according to the
law...serve as a copy and shadow....a more excellent ministry ...a better
covenant... better promises’; 9:19 ff. with 9:24 ff., the repeated sacrifice of the
high priest with the ‘“‘once for all’ sacrifice of Christ; 10:1 with 10:2b, “‘offered
447
LAW
year after year... once cleansed’’; 10:8 with 10:9a, 10, offerings made according
to the law but not desired... the readiness of Christ to do the will of God.
The vb. nomotheted, to give laws (pass., to receive laws) is similarly used to
present the same antithesis: the people of the old covenant received the law under
the Levitical priesthood (7:11), while Christ is the mediator of a better covenant,
legally instituted on the basis of better promises (8:6).
As in Paul, the overcoming of lawlessness (anomia) by Christ is the ground on
which the new covenant is based: the Son has hated lawlessness (1:9, quoting Ps.
45:7), and the Holy Spirit, speaking through the prophets, promised that one day
it would be finally forgiven; that day has now come (10:17, quoting Jer. 31:34).
Since the new covenant is now a reality, the writer can state that the law never made
anything perfect (7:19; 10:1c), and that the OT sacrifices are finished: ‘“‘where there
is forgiveness, there is no longer any offering for sin’’ (10:18).
5. In the Gospel of Jn. Christ and the Jews clash vehemently over the question
of the law. For Jesus claims personally to reveal God, whereas they represent the
rebellious ‘“‘world’’. They measure him by the law (7:23, 52; 8:5; 12:34, where pass-
ages from the Pss. [110:4] and the Prophets [Isa. 9:7; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 7:14] are
treated as law; 19:7), and he in return measures them by the law. He has an
absolute knowledge of it, expounds it and uses it to expose their hypocrisy (7:19;
8:17; 10:34; 15:25; in both of the last named passages Ps. 82:6 and 35:19 are
called “‘law’’). These disputes are thought by Bultmann and others to reflect the
controversy with Jewish gnosticism on the part of the author and the churches he
represents (cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, ad loc.; but + Knowledge,
art. gindsko).
The Gospel of Jn. develops the basic thesis (1:17) that, as compared with the
law given by — Moses, the — knowledge and — truth revealed in Jesus Christ
bring the full revelation of God. (Bultmann, op. cit., 79, points out the similarity
here to Pauline thought.) Christ’s repeated use of “‘your law” (8:17; 10:34) and
“their law” shows that the Son is not subject to the law. He charged the Jews with
appealing to Moses merely in self-justification; not one of them kept the law (7:19;
cf. Rom. 2:17—24). When it comes to healing and forgiveness, he cut through the
pedantry and complacency with which they treated the law (7:23; 8:5 ff.). The
passage about the woman taken in adultery (7:53-8:11), which is a later insertion
in the Gospel of Jn. and is missing from the best manuscripts, clearly reveals the
tension between Jesus and his opponents who were zealous for the law. He used
the law or the ‘“‘writings’’ of the OT to support his testimony to himself (8:17; cf.
Deut. 19:15; 10:34; cf. Ps. 82:6). The Jews, on the other hand, were prevented
from recognizing God’s present revelation in Christ, the — scripture being to
them nothing but the letter, 1.e. rules and regulations (5:39; 12:34; cf. Ps. 110:4;
Isa. 9:7; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 7:14).
The extent to which the handling of the law had become a matter for the spe-
cialists and therefore something to be exploited, is shown by the debate in the
Sanhedrin after an abortive attempt to arrest Jesus. ‘“The people do not know the
law”? (7:49), say the Pharisees, while one of their number, Nicodemus, has to
point out their own disregard of the law (v. 51). (On the well-attested scorn of
rabbinic scholars for the common people of the land see SB II 494-521; — People,
art. ochlos.)
448
LAW
The last legal debate (before Pilate) over the fate of Jesus demonstrates the utter
paradox of his opponents’ enslavement to the law. As an occupied people, the
Jews were not permitted to carry out the death penalty laid down in Lev. 24:16;
and Exod. 20:7 (cf. Jn. 5:18). By demanding that Christ’s accusers should judge him
according to their own law, Pilate adroitly extracts from them admission of their
hatred and also of their impotence (18:31). Only by appealing to their own law,
the law of Moses (19:7) can the Jews get their prisoner put to death, albeit by a
method which treats their law with contempt. By thus rejecting the revelation of
Christ, however, they merely make his willing sacrifice a reality. At the same time
the judgment of the law falls not only upon him, but upon them (15:2 ff.), as
Jesus has warned them it would (cf. Ps. 69:5; on the condemnation of Jesus as
“King of the Jews” — King, art. basileus, NT 1 (c)).
6. In 1 Jn. 3 and 4 the equation of sin with lawlessness or transgression of the
law (anomia) occurs twice. This does not imply some new legal ethic, but combats
what many scholars regard as the gnostic heresy of sinlessness (see 1:8, 10; cf. 2
Pet. 2:1 f., 8, a polemic against the type of life characterized by “‘lawless deeds
[anomois ergois]’”). 1 Jn. distinguishes between “‘sin unto death” (5:16b) which is
apostasy from true faith in Jesus, the Son of God (5:1—12), and “‘sin not unto death”’
(5:16a and 17), which can be confessed and forgiven (1:9). He who remains in
the true faith acknowledges that he needs forgiveness for his transgressions against
the law (anomia), and that such forgiveness is available to him. For him everything
depends on abiding in Christ (2:1b; 3:6), he then keeps the — commandments and
does what is well-pleasing to God (3:22 ff.; cf. W. Marxsen, Introduction to the
New Testament, 1968, 262 ff.).
7. James uses twice the apparently contradictory phrase “‘the law of liberty
[nomos eleutherias] (1:25; 2:12), both times in connection with his peculiar em-
phasis on not merely hearing but doing the word (1:22). The addition of the adj.
teleios (perfect) in 1:25 shows a background of Jewish thought (cf. Ps. 19:7), while
the combination “‘law of liberty” in Gk. has a mainly Stoic origin. The phrase
probably comes from the Jewish-Christian diaspora and refers chiefly to those
collections of Christ’s sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5—7) and
the Discourse on the Plain (Lk. 6:20 ff.), which were regarded as the rule of life.
Any man putting them into practice was thereby set free from a literal observance
of the OT law (see M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, KEK 15, 19644, 110-113,
138). On both occasions the reward of blessedness is promised to him who obeys
the law of liberty. The preceding context and 2:13 make it clear that deeds of —
mercy (art. eleos NT 5 (b)) are the chief element in the law of liberty. Jas. also calls
this law the ‘“‘royal law [nomos basilikos|’ (2:8), which can be summarized in the
command to love one’s neighbour. (““Royal’’ need not necessarily refer to Jesus the
King; it may equally refer simply to the grandeur of this commandment; see M.
Dibelius, op. cit., 32 ff.) He who keeps this commandment is free from the fear of
having to keep the whole of the Jewish law by a minute observance of every single
commandment (2:10 f.; cf. Gal. 3:10). It is still true, however, that he who rides
roughshod over this royal law by showing partiality will finally fall under “‘judg-
ment without mercy’’, exactly as if he had not kept the OT law (2:13a). The pro-
hibition of slander and judging (4:11 f.) has its origins both in the OT (Lev. 19:16)
and in the NT (Matt. 7:1-5; cf. Rom. 2:2), like many of James’ sayings. The
449
LAW
meaning of “‘law’’ will then depend on how it is taken, being either an injunction
in the OT sense, or alternatively ‘“‘the law of liberty’, a summary of Christ’s
injunctions (see above). The import remains the same, however. To speak ill of a
brother (a fellow church-member) is to speak ill of the law and to sit in judgment
upon it. Again, man is meant to be a doer of the law (see above) but the lawgiver
(nomothetés) and judge are one, and a man who judges another has ultimately to do
with him whose judgment is final (4:12; cf. Rom. 14:4). The twofold use of “‘one”’
for the divine name (common in Judaism) with the predicate ho dynamenos (‘“‘who
is able...) enables the reader to identify the “lawgiver’’ as both the Father and
the Son. (On the attitude of James and Paul to justification, faith and works —
Faith, art. pistis NT 4.)
8. Acts gives a vivid picture of the controversies over the law which arose in the
early church. On the one hand, there were the Jews and Jewish Christians who
remained true to the law, and on the other, Hellenistic Christians who thought in
universal terms (see above 3; also E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971,
100-3, 112 f., 267 f., 362 f., 440-72). With the exception of 15:5 and 23:29 all
references to the law are found in discourses which, while not having the nature of
purely independent evidence, accord well with the author’s historical approach and
bring both persons and situations into sharp relief. There is a striking parallel
between the accusations and prosecution which the Hellenistic Christian leaders
had to face, and the treatment meted out to Jesus. To that extent the disciples are
indeed not above their master (Matt. 10:23 ff.).
The charges levelled against them were as follows: speaking against the > temple
and the law (6:13, against Stephen, see also v. 11); persuading people to worship
God in a way that is “‘contrary to the law [para ton nomon]” (18:13, against Paul
in Corinth); teaching “‘all men everywhere’’ against the people, the temple and the
law (21:28, against Paul in Jerusalem; cf. also 21:21). For similar charges con-
cerning the temple see Matt. 26:61 par. Mk. 14:58; 24:2 par. Mk. 13:2; Jn. 2:19-
21; and concerning the law: Matt. 5:17 f.; Rom. 3:31. In the course of his defence,
Stephen asserted that the temple is not God’s dwelling place (7:48 f.) and went so
far as to charge the Jews with not keeping the law (7:53; cf. Rom. 3:19 f.; Jn.
7:19). This so provoked the Jews that he was immediately lynched, being stoned
to death before his trial was properly over (7:57 ff.). Paul, on the other hand,
when defending himself against his Jewish accusers before Festus, opened his
speech with the assertion that he had committed no offence either against the law
of the Jews or against the temple (25:8).
This is in line with the policy he had adopted ever since his recent arrival in
Jerusalem. Having welcomed him to the city with joy, the Jewish Christians
pointed out that they had remained zealous for the law (21:20), and referred to the
unfavourable reports about him which were in circulation, the essence of which
was that he taught the Jews to forsake — Moses, — circumcision and Jewish
custom (—> ethos NT). Since his life was in danger, they advised him to show the
Jews and Jewish Christians that he was true to the law (phylassén ton nomon, v. 24)
by undertaking the discharge of four destitute Nazirites, an act of charity
considered particularly pious among the Jews. This advice to Paul, and the fact
that they insisted once again that Gentile Christians should observe the so-called
apostolic decree (cf. 15:28 f.), show the efforts made by the Jerusalem church
450
LAW
leadership to maintain the utmost loyalty to the Jews and at the same time not to
lose contact with Gentile Christianity as promoted by Paul (on 21:15-26 see
Haenchen, op. cit., 606-18).
Paul complied with the request of the Jerusalem church and behaved as a devout
Jew (21:26), but being recognized again by Jews from Asia Minor, who protested
publicly (21:27 f.) against his missionary activities, he was very nearly lynched.
Claudius Lysias, the tribune of the occupying forces, permitted him to address the
people after his arrest, whereupon Paul emphasized his upbringing in the law
(22:3) and also Ananias’ loyalty to the law (22:12; cf. his speeches when defending
himself before Felix and Agrippa, 24:14; 26:5). The high priest who had him
struck on the mouth during interrogation was accused by Paul of violating the
law (paranomein; see Lev. 19:15a; cf. Jn. 18:22 f.) while administering the law
(2373):
This positive attitude of Paul to the law is explained by his freedom from the
law, as set out in 1 Cor. 9:19 ff. (see above 2 (c)). He knew that he was in the service
of the gospel, and saw no inconsistency between his present attitude and his
insistence, when writing from Corinth to Rome, that in God’s purposes of salva-
tion the law has now come to an end (Rom. 10:4; cf. Rom. 11:13 f.). The picture
of Paul which emerges from the Acts is of an apostle who, on the one hand,
opposed the Jewish Christians in their demand that Gentile converts be obliged
to practise circumcision and to keep the law (15:18), but who, on the other hand,
delivered the terms of the apostolic decree to the churches (16:4; cf. 15:28 f.), and
even had his (half-Jewish, half-Greek) assistant Timothy circumcised out of
regard for the Jews (16:3). When preaching in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch,
Paul appeared to present Christ as merely completing the justification left unfinished
by the law (13:38). Alternatively, we may see it as Lk.’s intention to delineate in
broad terms Paul’s preaching of justification as distinguished from the law of
Moses (cf. E. Haenchen, op. cit., 412).
It is noteworthy that the Roman authorities tended to reject the charge of total
illegality levelled against the preaching of the early Christians and to treat such
matters as mere controversies over Jewish law: Gallio (18:15); Claudius Lysias
(23:29); cf. Pilate (Jn. 18:31).
9. For the view of Christian faith as a “‘new law” in the post-apostolic period,
see — Commandment, art. entolé, NT 4, 5. H.-H. Esser
ioliete | OTOLYEIA (stoicheia), elements, rudiments; otolyé@
i (stoiched), be in line with, hold to; avatoiyéw (sy-
stoicheo), stand in the same line, correspond to, conform to.
cL The root stichos or stoichos means row, rank, line, especially battle line (since
Herodotus, 5th cent. B.c.), but also line of verse (cf. the words distich, acrostic).
From this root came the vbs. stichaomai, dep. mid., and stoiched, to be in a row or
line, to belong to a row, to remain in a line, to march in rank and file (found in
literature from the beginning of the 4th cent.); or (metaphorically), to step into
line (by giving an undertaking); also the noun fo stoicheion: especially the gnomon on
a sundial, or the shadow on a sundial, the length of the shadow, or metaphorically,
451
LAw
a part of a word (i.e. letter, syllable), component part of the universe (i.e. element),
hence original component (i.e. beginning, foundation, etc.). All these meanings
are in evidence by the beginning of the 4th cent. B.c. The derivative systoiched
(from the 2nd half of the 4th cent.) has an intensive meaning: to be in the same line,
to keep in line.
oT In the LXX the noun occurs only in the Apocrypha, and then only 3 times
(always plur.). In two places (Wis. 7:17; 19:18) the meaning is “‘elements of
the universe’, ‘matter’, and in the other (4 Macc. 12:13) “the substance of
human life’. The vb. stoicheo is found only in Eccl. 11:6, in the sense to succeed,
to prosper; the Heb. equivalent kasér has the further meaning to be fitting (cf.
Est. 8:5; see above CL).
NT 1. In the NT the vb. occurs only 5 times (once in Acts and 4 times in Paul).
Acts 21:24c gives the clearest sense: ‘‘will see that you too are in the ranks as
one who keeps the law [stoicheis kai autos phylasson ton nomon]|’ (G. Delling, T7DNT
VII 668; —» nomos NT 8). In other words, the reference is to leading a closely
regulated life, living according to definite rules. This is also shown by Phil. 3:16:
“Only let us hold true to what we have attained [stoichein].’’ This is the earliest and
shortest reading; the other readings elaborate on the common standard by which
our lives are to be lived, or the need for a common outlook. In Gal. 6:16 Paul uses
the word “‘canon’’ to describe the rule just given in v. 15, and links it with the vb.:
“keep to this rule of life’ (RSV: “walk by this rule’). Gal. 5:25b should accord-
ingly be paraphrased: “conduct our lives in conformity with the Spirit’ (cf. H.
Schlier, “‘order our lives according to the Spirit,’ Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7,
195144, ad loc.). In Rom. 4:12 the idea of constancy in a given direction is provided
by the context: “follow in the footsteps of the faith of our father Abraham’”’ (cf.
Arndt, 777). The compound systoiched (Gal. 4:25) concludes one of the two lines
of descent from — Abraham in vv. 22 ff., that namely of slavery: Hagar belongs
to the same line (systoichei) as the present — Jerusalem. Sinai, the mountain on
which the law was given, is here linked with stoicheo just as “law” is in Acts 21:24.
2. The noun is used exclusively in the epistles of the NT (7 times, always in the
plur.; 4 times in Paul, once in Heb. and twice in 2 Pet.). The two apocalyptic
passages, 2 Pet. 3:10, 12, are the simplest to interpret: the reference to “‘the ele-
ments” (v. 10) means earth, water and air, of which only the first is named ex-
plicitly, the last being understood as “‘the heavens’. When the world is consumed
these elements will be dissolved or will melt (vv. 10, 12) in the primeval element,
fire. The meaning of Heb. 5:12 is also clear, because of the presence of arché, —
beginning. The linking of these two words in ta stoicheia tés archés, “‘first principles”’
or “rudimentary elements’’ has a derogatory ring which is further emphasized by
the reminder that the readers need milk and not solid food. The recipients of Heb.
are not familiar with even the first principles of the faith. The elementary doctrines
are further defined in 6:1 ff.
In the case of Gal. 4:3, 9 and Col. 2:8, 20 it is a disputed question whether or
not the stoicheia tou kosmou, the “elements of the world”, are angels, demons,
gods, i.e. personified forces as taught by a certain gnostic heresy. Most commenta- |
tors hold this to be the case (cf. G. Delling, TDNT VII 684 ff., footnotes 95-108).
But Delling himself takes the passage in Gal. 4 to refer to the Torah with its
452
LAW
statutes and the world of false gods which the readers once served. In Col. the
expression refers to religion before and outside Christ. However, the question is
relatively unimportant, since the hierarchy of beings taught by gnosticism, while
partly syncretistic from the viewpoint of the history of religion, was in fact the
product of a philosophico-religious view of the world and of existence (cf. H.
Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 19637; — Knowledge).
The important point is that in Gal. 4:1-11 Paul has nothing positive to say
about “the elements of the world’’; he knows they have been overcome by Christ
the Redeemer. Compared with him they are weak and beggarly (v. 9; — poor, art.
ptochos NT 3 (b)) and not the gods (v. 8) the Gentiles believed them to be before
conversion. Even the law is reckoned as among the elements of the world (cf. the
Ist person plur., vv. 3, 5) and hence is declared null and void. Thus “‘the elements
of the world” cover all the things in which man places his trust apart from the
living God revealed in Christ; they become his gods, and he becomes their slave
(cf. Luther’s exposition of the First Commandment in the Large Catechism).
In Col. 2:8, human tradition and “‘the elements of the world’’ both come under
the heading of “philosophy” which seeks to prey upon men (sylagdgein). Such
““‘philosophy’’, however, has long since been defeated by Christ and has appeared as a
captive in his triumphal procession (vv. 10-15; on the Col. heresy cf. G. Born-
kamm, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, I, 1958", 139-86; M. D. Hooker, “Were there false
teachers in Colossae?” in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in
the New Testament. Studies in honour of C. F. D. Moule, 1973, 315-31). Just as
in Gal. 4:3, 5 “the elements of the world” and the law are combined, so in Col.
2:20 “the elements of the world”’ are disapprovingly linked with “‘regulations’’ by
the word dogmatizein (~ Command, art. dogma NT | (b) and 3). He who has
died with Christ (v. 20) has nothing further to do with them and so is freed from
the burdens they would impose on his day-to-day life (vv. 21 ff.; on the new life in
Christ, see 3:1). ““The worship of the elements of the world is based on the assump-
tion that the problem of life is both ultimate and insoluble. The early Christians,
however, believed that they had the answer, and that it lay in the character and
work of God” (E. Lohmeyer, Excursus “‘Elemente der Welt”, Die Briefe an die
Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon, KEK 9, 1956", 103 f.).
H.-H. Esser
—> Command, — Covenant ,— Fullness, + Goal, — Gospel, — Israel, — Moses, >
Promise, —> Prophet, — Righteousness, — Teach, — Work
On law in the OT and in the ancient world:
(a). A. Alt, ““The Origins of Israelite Law’, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966,
79-132; H. Cazelles, “‘Law in the Old Testament’, EBT II 480, 84; D. Daube, Studies in Biblical
Law, 1947; W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age and for the Age to Come, 1952; O. Eissfeldt,
The Old Testament: An Introduction, 1965, 155-241; I. Engell, ‘““The Pentateuch’’, Critical Essays
on the Old Testament, 1970, 50-67; Z. W. Falk and H. J. Wolff, ‘“‘Private Law’’, in S. Safrai, M.
Stern, D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century, 1974, 504-60;
R. K. Harrison, /ntroduction to the Old Testament, 1970, 493-662; M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the
Talmud, 1930; H. Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod, nomos etc., TDNT IV 1022-59; H. Jonas, The
Gnostic Religion, 19637; L. Koehler, Old Testament Theology, 1957, 107-10; B. Lindars, ‘‘Torah
in Deuteronomy’’, in P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars, eds., Words and Meanings: Essays Presented
to David Winton Thomas, 1968, 117-36; H. Miskotte, When the Gods are Silent, 1967; E. Nielsen,
The Ten Commandments in New Perspective, SBT Second Series 7, 1968; M. Noth, The Laws in the
Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966; G. Oestborn, Tora in the Old Testament, 1945; A. Phillips,
453
LAW
Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue, 1970; G. von Rad, Old Testa-
ment Theology, I, 1962, 187-279; II, 1965, 388-409; and The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other
Essays, 1966; J. J. Stamm and M. E. Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research, SBT
Second Series 2, 1967; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 1961, 143-63; J.
Weingreen, ‘““The Deuteronomic Legislator — A Proto-Rabbinic Type’’, in J. I. Durham and J. R.
Porter, eds., Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton
Davies, 1970, 102-32; revised in From Bible to Mishna, 1976; W. Zimmerli, The Law and the
Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament, 1965.
(b). J. Begrich, Thorah, BZAW 66, 1936; G. Bertram, “Zur Bedeutung der Religion der
Septuaginta in der hellenistischen Welt”, TLZ 92, 1967, 245 ff.; H. Cazelles, Etudes sur le Code
de I’ Alliance, 1946; A. Dinner, Gerechtigkeit nach dem Alten Testament, 1963; O. Eissfeldt, ‘“Das
Gesetz ist zwischeneingekommen’’, TLZ 91, 1966, 1 ff.; C. Feucht, Untersuchungen zum Heilig-
keitsgesetz, 1963; R. Hentschke, ‘‘Gesetz und Eschatologie in der Verktindigung der Propheten’’,
Zeitschrift fiir evangelische Ethik 4, 1960, 46 ff.; F. Horst, Gottes Recht. Gesammelte Studien zum
Recht im Alten Testament, 1961; H. Jonas, Gnosis und spatantiker Geist, I, 1964°; II, 1, 1954; B.
Reicke, Die zehn Worte in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Zahlung und Bedeutung der Gebote in den
verschiedenen Konfessionen, Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 13, 1973; R. Rendtorff,
Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift, 19632; H. Graf Reventlow, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 1961; D.
Rossler, Gesetz und Geschichte. Untersuchungen zur Theologie der jiidischen Apokalyptik und der
Pharisdischen Orthodoxie, 19627; J. Schreiner, Die zehn Gebote im Leben des Gottesvolkes. Deka-
logforschung und Verkiindigung, 1966; E. Wiirthwein, ‘“‘Der Sinn des Gesetzes im Alten Testament”’,
ZTK 55, 1958, 255 ff.; W. Zimmerli, ‘‘Das Gesetz im Alten Testament”, TLZ 85, 1960, 481 ff.
On law in the NT:
(a). L. Baeck ‘“The Faith of Paul’’, Journal of Jewish Studies 3, 1952, 93-110; R. Banks, ‘“‘Matthew’s
Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5:17—-20’, JBL 93, 1974,
226—42; Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
Series 28, 1976; and ‘“The Eschatological Role of Law in Pre- and Post-Christian Jewish Thought”’,
in R. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology
Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday, 1964, 173-85; R. S. Barbour, ‘‘Loyalty and Law
in New Testainent Times”, S/T 11, 1958, 337-51; G. Barth, ‘“Matthew’s Understanding of the
Law’’, in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1963,
58-164; P. Blaser, “Law in the New Testament’’, EBT II 185-95; G. Bornkamm, Early Christian
Experience, 1969; and Paul, 1971; B. H. Branscomb, Jesus and the Law of Moses, 1930; F. F.
Bruce, “‘Paul and the Law of Moses’’, BJRL 57, 1974-5, 259-279; R. Bultmann, ‘‘Christ the End
of the Law”, Essays Philosophical and Theological, 1955, 36-66; and The Gospel of John, 1971;
C. E. B. Cranfield, “‘St. Paul and the Law’’, SJT 17, 1964, 43-68; and The Epistle to the Romans,
ICC, I, 1975; W. D. Davies, Law in the Messianic Age, 1952; Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1955*;
“Matthew 5:17, 18”, Christian Origins and Judaism, 1962, 31-66; The Setting of the Sermon on
the Mount, 1964; and The Sermon on the Mount, 1966; G. Delling, stoiched etc., TDNT VII 666-87 ;
J. D. M. Derrett, ‘“Law in the New Testament”, ZNW 56, 1965, 184 ff.; and Law in the New
Testament, 1970; C. H. Dodd, ‘“‘Natural Law in the Bible’, Theology 49, 1946, 130-33, 161-67
(reprinted in New Testament Studies, 1953, 129-43); ‘“‘ennomos Christou’’, More New Testament
Studies, 1968; 134-48 (first published in Studia Paulina, in honorem Johannis de Zwaan, 1953);
and Gospel and Law: The Relation of Faith and Ethics in Early Christianity (Bampton Lectures in
America, 1950), 1951; J. W. Drane, Paul - Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the
Major Pauline Epistles, 1975; A. Ehrhardt, “‘Christian Baptism and Roman Law’’, The Framework
of the New Testament Stories, 1964, 234-55; E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 1957; H. L.
Ellison, ‘“‘Paul and the Law — ‘All Things to All Men’ ”’, in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds.,
Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th
Birthday, 1970, 195-202; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971; W. Gutbrod, nomos
etc., TDNT IV 1059-91; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971; G. E. Howard, ‘‘Christ
the End of the Law: The Meaning of Romans 10:4 ff.”’, JBL 88, 1969, 331~37; J. Jervell, ‘“The
Law in Luke-Acts”, HTR 64, 1971, 21-36; E. Kasemann, “Sentences of Holy Law in the New
Testament”’, in New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 66-81; G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the
New Testament, 1975, 495-510; R. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 1975;
F. Lyall, ‘“Roman Law in the Writings of Paul — Aliens and citizens’, EQ 48, 1976, 3-14; M.
Maher, ‘“‘ ‘Take my yoke upon you’ (Matt. xi. 29)”, NTS 22, 1975-76, 97-103; J. M. Meyers,
454
LAW
Grace and Torah, 1975; H. Preisker, ethos, TDNT II 372 f.; H. Schlier, Principalities and Powers
in the New Testament, 1961; R. Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom, 1963; H. J. Schoeps,
Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, 1961, 168-218, 280-93;
E. Schweizer, ““Observance of the Law and Charismatic Activity in Matthew”, NTS 16, 1969-70,
213-30; A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963; J. G.
Strelan, ““Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-examination of Gal. 6.2”, JBL 94, 1975,
266-76; M. J. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 1970; J.B. Tyson,
‘**Works of Law’ in Galatians”, JBL 92, 1973, 423-31; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St.
Paul, 1964, 76-86; R. McL. Wilson, ““Nomos: The Biblical Significance of Law’’, SJT 5, 1952,
36-48.
(b). W. Andersen, Ihr Seid zur Freiheit berufen: Gesetz und Evangelium nach biblischem Zeugisn,
Biblische Studien 41, 1964; K. Berger, Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu, 1, WMANT 40, 1972; L. Baeck,
Paulus, die Pharisder und das Neue Testament, 1961; P. Blaser Das Gesetz bei Paulus, 1941;
‘““Glaube undSittlichkeit bei Paulus’’, in Vom Wort des Lebens (Festschrift M. Meinertz), 1951, 114—
21; and ‘“‘Gesetz und Evangelium’’, Catholica 14, 1960, 1-23; G. Bornkamm, Das Ende des
Gesetzes. Paulusstudien. Gesammelte Aufsdatze, 1, 1966°; M. Dibelius, ““Die Bergpredigt’’, Botschaft
und Geschichte, I, 1953, 79 ff.; Der Brief des Jakobus, KEK 15, 19641; An die Kolosser, an die
Epheser, an Philemon, HNT 12, ed. H. Greeven, 1953*; and Die Pastoralbriefe, HNT 13, ed. H.
Conzelmann, 19708; C. Dietzfelbinger, Paulus und das Alte Testament, ThEH 95, 1961; K.
Galley, Altes und neues Heilsgeschehen bei Paulus, 1965; C. Haufe, “‘Die Stellung des Paulus
zum Gesetz”’, TLZ 91, 1966, 171 ff.; J. Jeremias, ‘“‘Paulus als Hillelit’’, in E. E. Ellis and M.
Wilcox, eds. Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, 1969, 88-94;
E. Jiingel, “Das Gesetzzwische n Adam nud Christus”, Z7K 60, 1963, 42 ff.; and Paulus und Jesus.
Eine Untersuchung zur Prdzisierung der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Christologie, 1967°; W. G..
Kiimmel, ‘“‘Paulus und die jiidische Traditionsgedanke”, ZNW 33, 1934, 105 ff. (reprinted in
Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 15 ff.); and ‘‘ ‘Das Gesetz und die Propheten gehen bis
Johannes’ — Lukas 16, 6 im Zusammenhang der heilsgeschichtlichen Theologie der Lukasschriften’’,
in O. Boécher and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas. Festschrift fiir Gustav Stahlin zum 70.
Geburtstag, 1970, 89-102; O. Kuss, ‘“‘nomos bei Paulus’’, Miinchener Theologische Zeitschrift 17,
1966, 173-227; H. Ljungmann, Das Gesetz erfiillen. Mt. 5, 17 ff. und 3, 15 untersucht, 1954; E.
Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an Philemon, KEK 9, 1956"!; E. Lohse,
Christologie und Ethik im Kolosserbrief, BZNW 30, 1964; S. Lyonnet, Liberté chrétienne et Loi
nouvelle, 1953; C. Maurer, Die Gesetzlehre des Paulus, 1941; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer,
KEK 4, 1966!*; F. Neugebauer, In Christus. Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Glaubensver-
standnis, 1961; K. Niederwimmer, Der Begriff der Freiheit im Neuen Testament, 1966; A. Oepke,
Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher, NTD 8, 1965'°; K. H. Schelkle, Paulus — Lehrer der Vater. Die
altkirchliche Auslegung von Rom. I-11, 1959; H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7, 1951");
E. E. Schneider, ‘“‘Finis legis Christus, R6m. 10, 4’, ThZ 20, 1964, 410 ff.; H. J. Schoeps, ‘“‘Jesus
und das jiidische Gesetz’’, Studien zur unbekannten Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, 1963, 41 ff.;
A. Schulz, Unter dem Anspruch Gottes. Das neutestamentliche Zeugnis von der Nachahmung, 1967;
H. Schitirmann, ‘“‘Wer daher eines dieser geringsten Gebote aufldést...’, BZ 4, 1960, 238-50;
E. Schweizer, ‘“‘Die ‘Elemente der Welt’ Gal. 4, 3. 9; Kol. 2, 8.20”, in O. Bocher and K. Haacker,
eds., op. cit., 245-59; G. Soéhngen, Gesetz und Evangelium, 1957; P. Stuhlmacher, Gottes Gerech-
tigkeit bei Paulus, 1965; W. Trilling, Das wahre Israel. Studien zur Theologie des Matthaus-
Evangelium, 1959; P. G. Verwejs, Evangelium und neues Gesetz in der altesten Christenheit bis auf
Marcion, 1960;.R. Walker, “Allein aus Werken’’, Z7K 61, 1964, 155 ff.
On the law generally in theology:
(a). K. Barth, CD, I, 2; II, 2; III, 3; II, 4; [V, 1; IV, 2; IV, 3 (see indexes); and “‘Gospel and
Law’’, in God, Grace and Gospel, SJT Occasional Papers No. 8, 1959, 3-27; C. Brown, Karl Barth
and the Christian Message, 1967 (see index); E. Brunner, The Divine Imperative: A Study in
Christian Ethics, 1937; J. H. Deibert, ‘“Law-Gospel or Gospel-Law?’’, SJT 15, 1962, 225-34; G.
Ebeling, ‘‘On the Doctrine of the Triplex Usus Legis in the Theology of the Reformation’, and
‘**Reflections on the Doctrine of the Law’’, Word and Faith, 1963, 62-78, 247-81; J. Ellul, The
Theological Foundation of Law, 1961; E. F. Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology,
1964; W. Lillie, The Law of Christ: The Christian Ethic and Modern Problems, 1956; J. Murray,
Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, 1957; I. T. Ramsey, ed., Christian Ethics and
Contemporary Philosophy, 1966; H. Thielicke, Theological Ethics, 1, Foundations, 1968; I, Politics,
1969 (see indexes); G. Wingren, Creation and Law, 1961.
455
LAWw/LAYMAN
theologischen Diskussion, ThEH 108, 1963; H. Beintker, ‘“‘Zur Vollmacht der ethischen Forderung
des Gehorsams’’, TLZ 91, 1966, 241 ff.; H. Berkhof, ‘“Gesetz und Evangelium’’, in Vom Herren-
geheimnis der Wahrheit. Festschrift H. Vogel, 1962, 127 ff.; G. Bornkamm, “‘Gesetz und Natur’,
Studien zu Antike und Christentum. Gesammelte Aufsatze, II, 1959, 93 ff.; R. Bring, ‘““Die Erfiillung
des Gesetzes’”’, Kerygma und Dogma 5, 1959, 1 ff.; O. Bickmann et al., ‘“Gesetz’’, EKL I 1551 ff.;
K. Fror, “Die theologische Lehre von Gesetz und Evangelium und ihre Bedeutung fiir Padagogik”’,
in Glauben und Erziehen. Festgabe G. Bohne, 1962, 127 ff.; H. Gerdes, ‘“Die Frage von Gesetz
und Evangelium in der gegenwartigen theologischen Diskussion’, in Wahrheit und Glaube,
Festschrift E. Hirsch, 1963, 100 ff.; H. von Glasenapp et al., ‘“‘Gesetz’’, RGG® II 1511-33; H.
Gollwitzer, ‘“Zum Verh4ltnis von Gesetz und Evangelium’’, Theologia Viatorum 8, 1960-61, 30 ff. ;
and “Zur Einheit von Gesetz und Evangelium’’, in E. Wolf, C. von Kirschbaum, R. Frey, eds.,
Antwort. Karl Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, 1956, 287-309; H.-J. lwand, Gesetz und Evangelium
Nachgelassene Werke, IV, ed. W. Kreck, 1964; W. Joest, Gesetz und Freiheit, 1960°; K. H. Kandler,
“Evangelium nihil aliud quam expositio legis”, Neue Zeitschrift fiir sytematische Theologie, 4,
1962, 127 ff.; W. Kreck, ‘“‘“Schopfung und Gesetz”’, Kirche in der Zeit 15, 1960, 369 ff.; E. Lange,
Die zehn grossen Freiheiten, 1965; A. T. van Leeuwen, Christentum in der Weltgeschichte, 1966;
W. Matthias, ““Der anthropologische Sinn der Formel Gesetz und Evangelium’’, Ev7h 22, 1962,
410 ff.; R. C. Schultz, Gesetz und Evangelium in der lutherischen Theologie des 19. Jahrhunderts,
Arbeiten zur Geschichte und Theologie des Luthertums, 4, 1955; G. Wingren, ‘“‘Adam, wir und
Christus”, Kerygma und Dogma 7, 1961, 54 ff.; E. Wolf, ‘‘Christum habere omnia Mosis, Bemer-
kungen zum Problem Gesetz und Evangelium’’, Fiir Kirche und Recht. Festschrift fiir J. Keckel,
1959, 287 ff.; W. Zimmerli, “Das Gesetz und die Freiheit”’, Juden, Christen, Deutsche, 1961, 294 ff.
(b). P. Althaus, Gebot und Gesetz, 1952; W. Andersen, Der clinch de in der gegenwartigen
Layman
—-——— ee | OIE ididtés), layman, unlettered, uneducated, un-
| teens skilled. eae
CL ididtés (from idios, own, personal, private), found in Gk. from Herodotus
onwards, means: (a) a private person as opposed to an occupant of a public
office (e.g. a ruler), or an individual citizen as opposed to the state or the totality of
citizens; (b) a layman as opposed to an expert (e.g., a priest, judge, or philosopher);
generally, an unlettered person as opposed to one who has knowledge; (c) an
outsider as opposed to one who “‘belongs’’.
OT ididtés occurs in the LXX only in Prov. 6:8b, without a Heb. equivalent. The
rabbis borrowed the word from the Gk., in the form of hedyét, and used it
similarly for (a) a private person as opposed to the king; (b) a layman as opposed to
an expert, particularly an expert in the law, and virtually an equivalent for ‘am
h@ ares, the people of the land or common people (cf. T. Taan. 4:12) because of
their lack of learning; (c) man as opposed to God.
NT In the NT idiotés, which occurs only 5 times, is used as in CL (b) and (c) above,
but not as in CL (a).
In Acts 4:13 the word is used in the sense of unlettered, uneducated: ‘““When
they ... perceived that they were uneducated [anthropoi agrammatoi], common
men [ididtai], they wondered” (RSV). Likewise 2 Cor. 11:6: “Even if I [Paul] am
unskilled in speaking [ididtés to logo], | am not in knowledge” (RSV).
The ididtai in 1 Cor. 14:16 are all those who do not possess the gift of tongues
and who therefore, not understanding what is said when this gift is exercised,
cannot join in the —-> Amen to the church’s thanksgiving. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 14:23,
456
LAYMAN/LEAD ASTRAY
24, the same word refers to those who are “‘uninitiated” into speaking in tongues.
They are unbelievers (apistoi), i.e. non-Christians, who attend Christian meetings
from time to time. For their sakes, Paul urges that public worship should be in-
telligible. The context lends no support to the view (e.g. of Arndt, 371) that these
ididtai are those not in full church membership, i.e. proselytes or catechumens.
If ididtés is translated by “layman’’, it is important to note that the NT word is
not used to distinguish church members from priests or clergy, for such a dis-
tinction was not drawn in the NT church. Rather, the word denotes outsiders as
distinct from Christians. A distinction between church members and clergy was
first made in A.D. 95 by Clement of Rome, who applied to believers the word
laikos (from /aos, people; 1 Clem. 40:5). The original emphasis was simply that all
belonged to the /aos, the — people (cf. H. H. Walz, RGG?, IV 204; Lampe, 790,
792). O. Flender
Arndt, 371; H. Schlier, ididtés, TDNT III 215 ff.; Lampe, 668; Moulton-Milligan, 299.
Lead Astray, Deceive
; mtAavacw (planao), lead astray, cause to wander, mislead;
| mAavaw | ; ‘ ; :
mAdvy (plané), wandering, delusion, error; zm/Advoc
(planos), leading astray, deceitful, deceiver, imposter; axozAavdaopal (apoplanao-
mai), go astray, wander away; (€¢-)azatdw ((ex-)apatad), trick, deceive; adxdty
(apaté), deception, trickery, deceitfulness; mapadoyiCopai (paralogizomai), cheat,
deceive, delude.
CL The Gk. root p/an- has its origin in the Indo-Germanic root *pela- to spread
out. Also related are the French fidner, to saunter around (cf. also German
flanieren), and the Norwegian flana, to drive around. The original meaning of
planaé (Homer) implies movement in space: in the act., to lead astray; in the mid.
and pass., to go astray, be led astray. plané or planos (first found in the tragic poets)
means going astray, roaming; p/anétés is a wanderer.
1. (a) The active form of the vbs. planad and apoplanao is seldom used in its lit.
sense. But in a transferred sense the vb. means to lead astray, deceive, by one’s
behaviour or one’s words. This can refer to a person’s judgment or to actions in the
realm of morals. (apo-)planaomai means lit., to wander from or roam about. It can
be used of men, powers, beasts, rumours, dreams, and even of blood or breath
pulsing through the body. It is by no means to be assumed that it always has a
negative undertone. In a transferred sense the vb. comes to mean to wander off
course, miss the mark, in thought, speech or action. Here again the word carries
no implication of guilt. The most that can be said is that it contains a summons to
right judgment (cf. — Sin, art. hamartia CL).
(b) In classical tragedy man’s mistakes are seen as a fate laid upon him by the
gods (as in the cases of Oedipus and Prometheus). In Plato the way to right insight
leads through error. The gnostics and the mystery cults used the word almost as a
technical term for man’s entanglement in the world from which he must be released.
(c) Similar meanings characterize the other derivatives of this group of words.
planos as an adj. (Menander) means inconstant, unsteady, deceiving; as a noun it
means deviation wandering about, or imposter. plané has the same meaning as
457
LEAD ASTRAY
the vb.: vacillation and error are characteristics of human life which are at first
stated as facts without further qualification. Thus in Plato plané can be used to
express digression of thought. The change to a negative sense can only be said to
have occurred when plané is used of disorder of the parts of the soul which leads
to adikia, injustice, and kakia, evil.
2. (ex)apataé and apaté are sometimes synonymous in meaning with words from
the root plan-. The emphasis is, however, somewhat different. The basis for deceit
and trickery is here not to be sought in agnoia, ignorance, so much as in an
epithymia, desire. apaté accordingly comes to mean pleasure, enjoyment, that which
is diverting, the pleasant illusion of the theatre. The noun can be personified and
occurs as a woman’s name. A negative sense is not at first attached to it, though
this develops later.
3. paralogizomai, attested from Isocrates, is a negative form of logizomai, to
calculate, reckon, consider. It connotes deception, cheating by false reasoning.
OT 1. There is no direct Heb. equivalent to the group of words derived from plan-.
planaé most frequently stands for ta‘adh (qal, to wander about; hiph., to lead
astray). The classical meaning of the Gk. word is taken over in the LXX. The
spatial sense of the vb. is found where mention is made of leading the — blind
astray (Deut. 27:18), and is also the basic concept behind the description of people
staggering as a result of drinking wine (cf. Isa. 19:13 f.; 28:7; — Drunken, Sober).
The frequent use of the term in combination with hodos, way, has its origin in the
spatial sense of the term (cf. Isa. 35:8). It corresponds to Israel’s way of life, when
wandering sheep are used as an illustration of man’s existence (cf. Deut. 22:1;
Isa. 13:14; 53:6; Ps. 119:176). The fate of the people in the wilderness wanderings
is seen in Num. 14:29, 33 as a punishment of God for their disobedience (cf. also
Deut. 2:14). The people go astray by ignoring God’s commandment and practising
idolatry (cf. Deut. 13:6). Those who lead them astray are idols (Amos 2:4), false
prophets (Jer. 23:32), and unfaithful kings (2 Chron. 33:9). Even God himself
appears in the role of one who leads astray (Job 12:33; Ezek. 14:9; Isa. 63:17).
Because Israel’s path every now and again leads her astray, turning and salvation
are necessary. This basic relationship to God is aptly expressed by the picture of
sheep who cannot exist without a — shepherd (~ Lamb, Sheep, art. probaton).
2. apatao is chiefly used for verbal forms of patdh, which in the gal and niphal
means to be deceived, be simple; in the piel to deceive, seduce; and in the pual to
be led astray. The deception can be used as a human strategem to dupe others (e.g.,
Samson’s in Jdg. 14:15; 16:5). Gen. 3:13 speaks of the serpent’s deception in
enticing the woman to eat the forbidden fruit. In a vision of Micaiah ben Imlah
the personified spirit offers, in Yahweh’s royal council, to become a lying spirit
and to entice King Ahab and his prophets (1 Ki. 22:21 ff.). On the other hand,
there is the Psalmist’s testimony: “I sought God... and I was not deceived’’ (Ps.
76:3 LXX).
3. In the inter-Testamental period some important elements are added to the
concept of being led astray. The agents are often spirits or powers, especially, for
example, the sons of God (Gen. 6:1 ff.) and the diabolos (— Satan; SB I 136 ff.).
Apocalyptic literature predicts the plané as a precursor of the end of the world, the
day of the messiah (SB IV 977 ff.).
458
LEAD ASTRAY
4. The Qumran texts speak, on the one hand, of a wandering astray of the chil-
dren of light which is brought about by evil spirits and impulses (1QS 3:21; CD
2:17; 3:4, 14), and, on the other hand, of men who have appeared as deceivers of
the community (CD 20:11; 1QH 2:14, 19; 4:7, 12; 16:20).
NT The active vb. (apo-)planao is used in the NT almost exclusively in an apocalyp-
tic sense (Matt. 24:4 f., 11, 24; Mk. 13:5 f.; Lk. 21:8; Rev. 2:20; 12:9; 13:14;
18:23; 19:20; 20:3, 8, 10) and of false teachers (2 Tim. 3:13; 1 Jn. 1:8; 2:66; 3:7).
The nouns also often appear in this context (e.g. 2 Thess. 2:11; 2 Pet. 2:18; 3:17;
Jude 11, 13; 1 Jn. 4:6; 2 Jn. 7). The primary, spatial sense is seen most clearly
where the picture of sheep is expressly introduced (Matt. 18:12 f.; 1 Pet. 2:25),
or in combination with hodos, way (2 Pet. 2:15; cf. also Heb. 11:38). It is never,
however, spatial and nothing more: there is always a theological meaning associated
with its use. The mid. (apo-)planaomai is used in the sense of to be wrong, to be led
astray, to err (Tit. 3:3; Heb. 3:10 = Ps. 95:10; Heb. 5:2; Jas. 5:19; Matt. 22:29;
Mk. 12:24; 1 Tim. 6:10). Similarly the formula, often used by the Stoics (cf. TDNT
VI 244), mé planasthe, means “‘Do not be deceived’’, make no mistake”’ (Gal. 6:7;
1 Cor. 6:9; 15:33; Jas. 1:16). The pure passive sense, to be deceived, is to be found
e.g., at Matt. 18:12; Jn. 7:47; 2 Tim. 3:13. The noun plané refers to a specific
mistake (Matt. 27:64; 2 Pet. 3:17; Jude 11), or to more general confusion, error,
lack of discipline and restraint (Rom. 1:27; Eph. 4:14; 1 Jn. 4:6). The nouns
planétés and planés occur. only in variant readings of Jude 13 in the sense of a
wandering star or planet, with which Jude compares the false teachers. The point
of the comparison is the apparently irregular movement of the planets which seemed
to violate the order of the heavens and which was attributed to the disobedience
of the angels controlling them. As punishment the latter were imprisoned for ever
in the abyss (Eth.Enoch 18 :13—-16; 21 :1-10; cf. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter
and Jude, BNTC 1969, 274). planos is used both as an adj. (of deceitful spirits, 1 Tim.
4:1); and as a noun, deceiver, imposter (of Jesus in Matt. 27:63; of those who deny
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, 2 Jn. 7; of Paul and his colleagues, 2 Cor.
6:8).
(ex-)apatad and apaté occur in 2 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:14 with reference to
Gen. 3; 1n 2 Thess. 2:3; Eph. 5:6; Col. 2:8 in connection with false teachers; and
in Matt. 13:22 par. Mk. 4:19; Rom. 7:11; 2 Thess. 2:10; Heb. 3:13; 2 Pet. 2:13
in the ethical sense of enticement by — sin or to sin.
paralogizomai occurs only at Col. 2:4 and Jas. 1:22, meaning to delude (with
beguiling speech) and to deceive oneself (by being merely a hearer and not a doer
of the word).
The terms we have considered can be used synonymously as far as their theo-
logical meaning is concerned. The differences of meaning in NT usage correspond
to the various shades of meaning mentioned in OT above.
1. The picture of sheep that get lost and perish, having no shepherd, is widely
used in the OT (cf. Num. 27:17; 1 Ki. 22:17; Ps. 119:176; Isa. 53:6; Ezek. 34;
Zech. 13:7). In the NT it is taken up again in various contexts (Matt. 10:6;
12:11 f.; 14:14 par. Mk. 6:34 [= Num. 27:17; 1 Ki. 22:17] Lk. 9:11; Matt. 18:12;
Matt. 26:31 par. Mk. 14:27 [= Zech. 13:7]; Lk. 15:4; Jn. 10; 1 Pet. 2:25).
planaé and its cognates are part of the framework of this picture. Nearly all the
459
LEAD ASTRAY
places where these words are used may be interpreted in terms of this background,
even when it is not expressly mentioned. Jesus is the — way (hodos) and the —
truth (alétheia) (Jn. 14:6). To be removed from him, the shepherd, means to wander
about without guidance or protection and so be in danger of getting lost. The vbs.
planao and apollyo (— destroy) are interchangeable in this context (cf. Matt. 18:12
with Lk. 15:4 ff.). Where we read of nations going astray (Rev. 18:23), of those who
have wandered from the right way (2 Pet. 2:15; Jas. 5:20), or the people of God
going astray (Heb. 3:10 [= Ps. 95:10]; 5:2), there is this underlying image coupled
sometimes with the wilderness wanderings of Israel. It is also implicit in the passages
where mention is made of false teachers who lead astray (e.g. Matt. 24:4 ff.; Jn.
7:12; 1 Jn. 3:7; Rev. 20:8-10).
2. Life prior to becoming a Christian is described as p/ané, error (Rom. 1:27;
Eph. 4:14; Tit. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:25). This is a time of being without the guidance and
support of a Lord and shepherd. It is a time of unbelief and of sin, even though the
wandering itself occurred apart from the — law of Moses (cf. Rom. 1:18 ff.).
For the man who is under the law, to go astray is sin (hamartia, Rom. 7:11).
To wander away from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10) or from the truth (Jas. 5:19 f.), the
deception of the heart (Rom. 16:18; Heb. 3:10,13; Jas. 1:26) is both sinful and
incurs guilt (cf. also 2 Thess. 2:10).
The story of the — fall is the archetype of deception and disobedience as a
result of appetite and desire (2 Cor. 11:3, 1 Tim. 2:14). Here the apatad group of
words come into their own. Riches are seductive (Matt. 13:22 par. Mk. 4:19; 1
Tim. 6:10), and there are other desires lying in wait to deceive the believer (Rom.
16:18; Eph. 4:22; 2 Pet. 2:13).
In the background are dark powers, such as the spirit of deception (1 Tim. 4:1;
1 Jn. 4:6), the — Antichrist (2 Jn. 7), and ultimately — Satan himself who causes
error and confusion (Rev. 12:9; 20:10).
3. The danger for the Christian is of deceiving himself (1 Cor. 3:18; 1 Jn. 1:8)
which can lead to falling away from right doctrine. Hence the need for the oft-
repeated warning mé planasthe, *“*Do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9; 15:33; Gal.
6:7; Jas. 1:16; cf. also 2 Thess. 2:3). He who is not firmly grounded in the faith
is in danger of missing the true — knowledge (— ginosko), since numerous false
teachers threaten the church (1 Thess. 2:3; 2 Thess. 2:3; Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:8; 1
Jn. 2:26; 3:7; 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:13; 2 Pet. 2:18; 3:17). To be led astray by false teach-
ing, in the form of philosophy or empty words, and to be led astray into definite
acts of sin, are processes that go hand in hand. On the opposite side is the — truth
(Jas. 5:19 f.) which must be held firmly by faith in him who is himself the truth.
4. Jesus is hated and persecuted by the Jews because they see in him the one who
leads the people astray (Matt. 27:63; Jn. 7:12, 47). In the eyes of those who do not
believe the apostles are imposters (2 Cor. 6:8), although they are servants of the
truth. In this struggle to uphold the truth the church is pointed to him who himself
experienced the weakness of a man (Heb. 5:2), and who can therefore provide
support. Faith in him is the yardstick of truth and error. Seen in this light, the
church’s opponents turn out to be deceivers who themselves have been deceived,
and the — Pharisees are those who really lead the people astray (Matt. 22:29;
Mk. 12:24, 27; cf. 2 Tim. 3:13). For the Christian there is no other criterion of
truth than Jesus Christ.
460
LEAD ASTRAY/LEAVEN
5. The final demonstration of the truth lies in the future, in the final revelation
of Jesus Christ at his second coming. The era of the church is the era of fighting for
the truth. The apostles’ testimony is proclaimed to all nations (Matt. 28:18 ff.),
but at the same time the powers increasingly bring in confusion and error (Matt.
24:4f., 11, 24; Mk. 13:5 f.; Lk. 21:8; cf. Rev. 18:23; 20:3, 8). It is against the
background of this final climax of the struggle that most of the texts containing the
terms we have been considering are to be understood. The end event consists of
the coming of the Lord to take home the lost and those who have gone astray, and
to make an end of all plané, deception (2 Pet. 3; 2 Thess. 2; Rev. 12:9; 13:14).
W. Guinther
— Animal, — Antichrist, — Knowledge, — Lamb, Sheep, — Present, — Prophet,
—> Shepherd, — Teach, — Tempt, — Walk
(a). W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, 1972; G. R. Beasley-Mutrray, A
Commentary on Mark Thirteen, 1957; H. Braun, planad etc., TDNT VI 228~-53; R. Bultmann,
Theology of the New Testament, Il, 1955, 127-42, 203-18; M. D. Hooker, ‘‘Were there false
teachers at Colossae?’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testa-
ment. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, 1973, 315-32; Liddell-Scott, 181, 1316 f., 1411;
A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament, Supplements to NovT 13, 1966; A. Oepke, apatad
etc. 384f.; H. Raisanen, The Idea of Divine Hardening. A Comparative Study of the Notion of
Divine Hardening, Leading Astray, and Inciting to Evil, in the Bible and the Qur’an, Publications of
the Finnish Exegetical Society 25, 1972.
(b). G. Quell, Wahre und falsche Propheten, 1952.
Leaven
| Coun Coun (zymé), leaven; Coudw (zymoo), ferment; dlvpoc
(azymos), unleavened.
CL zymé appears in secular Gk. from Aristotle (4th cent. B.c.) to the Tebtunis
Papyri (2nd cent. A.D.). zymoo first appears in Hippocrates (Sth cent. B.c.).
Leaven, in fermenting grain, is not yeast, but old, sour dough, stored and stimulated
as a fermentation agent by adding juices, which was “‘hidden’”’ (Matt. 13:33 par.
- Lk. 13:21) in the new dough in order to permeate it and give it lightness. In the
Roman state cult the Flamen Dialis was not permitted to come into contact with
leaven, because, claimed Plutarch (Quaestiones Romanae 109), it weakens, sours and
corrupts.
OT 1. zymé is used lit. in the LXX and in Josephus in cultic contexts concerned
with regulations for feasts and sacrifices (e.g. Exod. 12:15, 19; Deut. 16:3;
Josephus, Ant. 3, 252 f.). It was not necessarily taboo in Jewish ritual. Leaven was
used in the peace and wave offerings (Lev. 7:13), but was forbidden in the cereal
offerings consumed by fire (Lev. 2:11; 6:17). In the ritual of the Passover and the
Feast of Unleavened Bread all leaven was cleaned out from every Jewish home
annually for the 14 Nisan, and only unleavened bread was eaten from that evening
and the seven days following (Exod. 12:14—-20), commemorating the hurried flight
from Egypt (Exod. 12:34, 39). While this spring-clean was a cult ordinance, it
served the hygienic purpose of breaking any chain of infection established by
successive use of sour leaven (C. L. Mitton, ““Leaven’’, ExpT 84, 1972-73, 339 f.).
461
LEAVEN
2. Figuratively leaven was given different meanings in rabbinic tradition. Rabbi
Alexander used it as a metaphor for human restraints on obeying God (I. Abra-
hams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I, 1917, 52 ff.), whereas Rabbi Chiyya
bar Abba described as leaven the Torah with its power to lead Israelites who
observe it back to God (SB I 728). Philo also gave it divergent transferred meanings.
On the one hand, it symbolized swelling arrogance, indulgence and pretension
(Quaest. in Exod. 1, 15; 2, 14). On the other hand, it suggested complete (spiritual)
nourishment and blissful joy (Spec.Leg. 2, 185).
NT 1. zymé and zymoo appear in the Synoptic Gospels and in Paul. Each instance
is in a literary figure: parable, metaphor, proverb and type. The point of the
various uses varies from context to context, despite the frequent claim among
scholars that in the NT “leaven is used symbolically to symbolize an evil influence
which spreads like an infection” (C. L. Mitton, op. cit., 342).
(a) Parable. In Matt. 13:33 par. Lk. 13:21 the hidden but persistent expansion
of the — kingdom of God — seen in the words and works of Jesus — is compared
to leaven hidden in dough until it permeates the whole. H. Odeberg interprets the
parable as a warning against evil (Herren kommer, 1962, 199-201), and C. L.
Mitton as a comparison with the influential power of evil (op. cit., 341). However,
the point of the preceding parable of the mustard seed is expansion by something
minute (cf. the proverb in 1 Cor. 5:6). The Gospel of Thomas stresses the expansive
property of leaven in its use of the parable (B. Gartner, The Theology of the Gospels
of Thomas, 1961, 230 f.). The point in Matt. and Lk. appears to be expansion by
secret, hidden permeation, not evil influence (B. Gerhardsson, ““The Seven Parables
in Matthew 13’’, NTS 19, 1972-73, 22 f.). No indication is given of the significance
of the dough, whether it is meant to refer to the culture of society or to the terri-
torial orbis terrarum.
(b) Metaphor. In Mk. 8:15 leaven is an attribute of the Pharisees and of Herod
(v./. of the Herodians), of which the disciples are to beware. Matt. 16:11 f., ina
warning against Pharisees and Sadducees, interprets the metaphor as “‘teaching”’,
and Lk. 12:1, in a warning against Pharisees alone, as “‘hypocrisy’’. Several
scholars (e.g. V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1953, 365) believe that
the warning suggests that leaven indicates something evil, but this is not necessarily
so (H. Windisch, TDNT II 906). If the Pharisees were making a similar claim for
the Torah as that made later by Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba (see oT 2, above), then
the warning which is not explained in the Marcan version would have been under-
stood without explanation. Further, in this case, Matt. rightly interpreted the
metaphor, as did Lk., when writing to a Christian public, since Pharisaic observ-
ance of the Torah in the view of Jesus (cf. Matt. 6:2 ff.; 23:13) was no longer a
vital faith but a mask.
(c) Proverb. In 1 Cor. 5:6 and Gal. 5:9 Paul uses the words, “‘A little leaven
leavens the whole lump.” Proverbial in form, but not found outside Paul as a
proverb, these words might have been associated in the Christian church with the
parable of the leaven. Windisch suggests that Jesus elaborated the point of the
proverb in the parable (op. cit., 905). But since the parable is not evidenced prior
to the formation of the Gospel tradition outside Paul, it is possible that the parable
gave rise to the proverb in the church. For synoptic traditicn elsewhere seems to
462
LEAVEN/ LEPROSY
have influenced material in NT epistles (cf. H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition
and its Beginnings, 1957, 15). In 1 Cor. the proverb symbolizes the notion that the
continuing presence of a transgressor in the community renders the community
guilty of the transgression (v. 1) and in Gal. the imagery refers to the influence of
false teachers on the understanding of the congregation.
(d) Type. In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul exhorts the community to “‘clean out the old leaven.”’
This might be an injunction to expel the offender (v. 13) or to divest themselves of
the “‘boast” of association with the transgression. The grounds for the command
are that Christ the Passover (— lamb) has been sacrificed, that the Christians are
‘““unleavened’’, and that the festival is to be kept by expelling leaven (malice and
evil) and by partaking of unleavened bread (sincerity and truth). This type (not
allegory, A. T. Hanson, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology, 1974, 112 ff.)
recalls the Passover ritual and the Christian identification of Christ with the
Passover — lamb (Jn. 19:14, 31; 1 Pet. 1:19). The Jews cast out the leaven before
eating the Passover; the believer is to cast out leaven, because the Passover sacri-
fice has already taken place, whereby he is accepted and made new by God (1 Cor.
6:11). This is a classic example of Pauline ethical teaching in which the acts of God
in Christ on behalf of the Christian — expressed in the indicative mood — are the
grounds for exhortation to Christ-like living — expressed in the imperative mood —
both by renouncing evil and pursuing good as God works within the believer.
Other examples are found in Rom. 6; 1 Cor. 6:19 f.; Col. 2:20-4:1.
2. azymos, unleavened. Apart from the uses in 1 Cor. 5:7 f. (see above 1 (d)),
this word is found elsewhere in the NT in the plur. form ta azyma, meaning the
Feast of Unleavened Bread. This was originally a harvest festival (Exod. 23:14-17),
celebrated in the month Abib. It became part of the Passover ritual, set for 15-21
Nisan, but also dated to begin on 14 Nisan (Josephus, Ant. 2, 15, 1; 14, 2, 1), as we
find in Mk. 14:12. The Jews regularly equated the Passover with the Feast of
Unleavened Bread (Ezek. 45:21; Josephus, War, 2, 10), as Lk. 22:1 does.
G. T. D. Angel
—> Bread, — Feast, — Hunger, — Sacrifice
O. T. Allis, ‘““The Parable of the Leaven’’, EQ 19, 1947, 254 ff.; Arndt, 340; J. P. Lewis, ““Leaven”,
ZPEB Ill 901 ff.; Liddell-Scott, 757; C. L. Mitton, ‘“‘Leaven”, ExpT 84, 1972-73, 339-42; H.
Windisch, zymé etc., TDNT III 902-6.
Leprosy
Leprosy is an ancient designation of a fairly extensive class of diseases, the principal
symptoms of which were of a cutaneous nature. Leprosy appears to have been
endemic in various parts of the ancient orient, being described as far back as the
third millennium B.c. It was held in abhorrence by the Hebrews partly because of
the pathology itself, and partly because it was accompanied by ceremonial defile-
ment which rendered the sufferer unclean. For these reasons the leper, once his
condition was properly diagnosed, was banished from society.
: Aen poc (lepros), leprous, but chiefly used as a noun
| denpss | describing a leper.
463
LEPROSY
CL Classical writers employed the adjective Jepros to describe anything rough,
scabby or scaly. Among ancient Greek leather workers the best straps and reins
were supposedly those prepared from roughly textured (ek lepron) skins or hides.
In Hippocrates and Dioscorides the adj. was used to describe a leprous person,
1.e., Someone with a scaly skin affliction such as psoriasis.
OT lepros occurs in the LXX in Lev. 13:45; 14:2 f.; 22:4; Num. 5:2 etc. as the
equivalent of sdriia‘ and m°séra‘, participial forms of sara‘, to become diseased
in the skin. If the Heb. is equivalent to the Akkadian sinnitu, it would describe any
kind of skin eruption, of which clinical leprosy (Hansen’s disease) would be one
form. It should be observed that the instructions given in Lev. 13 to the priests to
enable them to detect leprosy also suggested that skin afflictions other than clinical
leprosy might be present in individuals, thus furnishing the possibility of differential
diagnosis. Perhaps for this and other reasons the term Jepros was sufficiently
flexible in nature to include such common dermatological conditions as impetigo,
psoriasis, eczema, acne vulgaris and the like, as well as leprosy itself. Specific
diagnoses will be considered below in the section on Jepra.
NT NT writers employed /epros as a noun, leper, and in this sense it occurs 9 times
only. The cleansing of a leper is referred to in Matt. 11:5; Mk. 1:41 f.; Lk. 7:22;
17:12, as part of the healing ministry of Christ. Lk. 4:27 cited an OT miracle
whereby Elisha healed the leprosy of Naaman (2 Kings 5:1 ff.). Jepros was also
used of Simon, formerly a leper, in Matt. 26:6; Mk. 14:3. The word was employed
in as broad a sense as its OT counterpart, and the fact that some clinical mani-
festations called for cleansing, or a priestly declaration of cleanness, implies that
the conditions described by /epros varied in severity, and doubtless included specific
instances of Hansen’s disease. R. K. Harrison
| ET pa | Aén pa (lepra), leprosy.
CL In Herodotus and the medical authors, /epra was employed as a description of
a cutaneous disease which gave a scaly or uneven texture to the skin. It was
associated by Herodotus (1, 138) and Hippocrates with leuké, a whitish affliction
of the skin, and seems to have been acquired Jeucodermia (vitiligo). This is a con-
dition of the skin in which there is an absence of pigment, the result being the
presence of irregular pale or white patches. The Greek medical authors also
employed another term, elephas, or elephantiasis, to describe a different and much
more serious chronic disorder (elephantiasis Graecorum), which was found frequently
in Egypt, the symptoms of which corresponded largely to those now associated with
clinical leprosy. Curiously enough, only one case of this latter disease has been dis-
covered among Egyptian mummies to date, despite the common association by
classical writers of leprosy with Egypt.
OT /epra occurs in the LXX as the Gk. equivalent of the Heb. sdra‘at, traditionally
rendered by leprosy in the EVV, but by “malignant skin-disease’’ in NEB.
The term sdra‘at described a kind of eruptive condition which could be exhibited
464
LEPROSY
by leather (Lev. 14:55), clothing (Lev. 13:47, 59), and the walls of houses (Lev.
14:44), as well as by human beings. The various forms in which sdra‘at could be
manifested were described in detail in Lev. 13 using ancient Heb. technical terms
which unfortunately are very difficult for the modern student to comprehend. The
situation is not made any easier by such translations of sdra‘at as the NEB ‘“‘malig-
nant skin-disease’’. This generalized designation unfortunately leaves no room for
the specific diagnosis of clinical leprosy, which Lev. 13 clearly allows.
Preliminary symptoms included a swelling indicative of possible morbid changes
(s°ét; LXX oulé), a localized tissue-crust on the epidermis (sappahat; LXX sémasia),
and a whitish-red swollen spot (baheret; LX X télaugéma). Since any or all of these
could presage clinical leprosy, the sufferer presented himself to the priest for exam-
ination. If subcutaneous penetration was exhibited along with a whitening of the
small local cuticular hairs, a malignant state was suspected and the patient was
declared unclean. But if the skin tissue, while swollen, was not actually inflamed
(13:4) and did not indicate subcutaneous changes of a morbid nature or dis-
colouration of local hair, the patient was quarantined for seven days. If on re-
examination the swollen area of the whitish spot had not increased in size, a further
seven days’ quarantine could be followed by a priestly diagnosis of a benign skin
condition. But if there was a spreading of the eruption in the skin subsequently,
it was diagnosed as leprosy (13:8). A chronic state of leprosy was indicated by
depigmented hairs and ulcerated tissue in an area of swollen white skin, this also
rendering the sufferer unclean. But if the whole body was covered with patches of
depigmented skin (probably acquired leucodermia), the individual who manifested
this condition was pronounced clean (13:13). The mild type of ulceration found in
many cutaneous diseases was also kept under observation, and degenerative
changes resulted in a diagnosis of leprosy. Differential diagnosis turned upon the
degree of cutaneous penetration of the disease. If the dermis and local cutaneous
hairs exhibited pathological changes, leprosy was diagnosed. Otherwise the sufferer
could be regarded as being afflicted with eczema, vitiligo, acne, psoriasis, or some
analogous skin disease. A condition which may have been a keloid, marked by
indurated patches of a whitish colour on a larger pinkish or purplish area of skin,
was described in Lev. 13:18 ff. Once again, the degree of localization and skin
penetration determined the nature of the affliction, which at best is rather obscure.
Scalp disease was treated in the same manner as other forms of skin eruptions,
so that an itchy condition (NEB “‘scurf”’) such as ringworm could be differentiated
from more serious cutaneous diseases. Alopecia (baldness) did not involve ritual
defilement (13:40 f.) unless the pathology characteristic of leprosy was also present.
The term sdra‘at was also applied to material damaged by molds or fungi
(13:47 ff.), and to the mineral efflorescence on the walls of houses (14:34 ff.).
What was diagnosed as sara‘at undoubtedly included genuine cases of clinical
leprosy, the cause of which was identified by Hansen in 1871 as a minute fungus,
Mycobacterium leprae, but which is now identified as a bacillus. The developed
disease, if allowed to run its full course, may exhibit three forms. The nodular
(lepromatous) type produces lumps in the facial tissues and a form of cutaneous
induration which results in a characteristic leonine appearance. Degenerative
changes also occur in nose and throat membranes. An anaesthetic (tuberculoid)
variety attacks the nerves of the skin, producing depigmented areas in which there
465
LEPROSY/LEVITE
is no feeling. The local hair often undergoes morbid changes, blisters and per-
forating ulcers frequently form on these patches and elsewhere, and it is common
for the extremities of the arms and legs to be affected. In such cases necrosis occurs
and the diseased part will then be rejected by the body, leaving a well-healed stump
(lepra mutilans). A third form of leprosy combines the symptoms of the first two
kinds in varying degrees, and like them is chronic in nature.
NT In the NT J/epra occurred 4 times only in passages apparently describing the
same incident (Matt. 8:3; Mk. 1:42; Lk. 5:12 f.). Luke noted the advanced
nature of the condition (RSV “full of leprosy’’; NEB, “‘covered with leprosy’’), but
apart from this it is not easy to determine the true nature of the complaint. It may
have been acquired lJeucodermia, since the sufferer seems to have been moving in
society to some extent, although the possibility of an advanced case of clinical
leprosy should not be discounted. In Lk. 17:12 ff. Jesus cures ten lepers (/eproi
andres).
({[Ed.] In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the latter is said to have been
“full of sores [heilkémenos]” (Lk. 16:20; cf. Arndt, 251). On this parable see the
article by J. D. M. Derrett listed in the bibliography below.)
— Heal, — Miracle R. K. Harrison
S. G. Browne, “‘Leprosy’’, Medicine, 1972-74, 1549-57; Leprosy in the Bible, 1974"; and S. G.
Browne, ed., Leprosy Review; R. G. Cochrane, Biblical Leprosy: A Suggested Interpretation,
1963?; J. D. M. Derrett, ‘““Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings’’, Law in the New Testa-
ment, 1970, 78-99; R. K. Harrison, “Leprosy”, [DB III 111 ff.; W. Michaelis, /epra etc., TDNT I
233 f.; J. N. Sanders, ““Those whom Jesus Loved’, NTS 1, 1954~55, 29 ff.
Levite
Wene Aevi(c) (Leui[s]), Levi; Aevityco (Leuités), Levite;
| Aevitns | Aevitikdc (Leueitikos), Levitical.
oT A Levite was any descendant of Jacob’s third son, Levi (Heb. J/éwi; Gen. 29:34),
but the term is relatively seldom so used in OT. Normally it refers to the male
descendants of Levi apart from the priests, the descendants of Aaron, i.e. to those
entitled to serve in the sanctuary in a subordinate role. Where the expression “‘the
priests the Levites’” (RSV, NEB, “the Levitical priests’’) is used, its meaning is
probably that of genuine priests in contrast to those from other tribes who might
arrogate the position to themselves. Deut. 18:1 is not likely to mean, as is so often
held, that all Levites were priests, even though a Levite was obviously welcomed
when an Aaronic priest was not available (Jdg. 17:13).
In the course of time the Levites diminished in importance, largely for economic
reasons. Num. 18:21, 24 gave the whole tithe to the Levites, who were expected
to give a tithe of it to the priests (Num. 18:26 ff.). It seems clear, however, that as
the priestly clans multiplied, the Levites were increasingly squeezed out of the more
important sanctuaries, except from menial posts, especially after Josiah’s reforma-
tion, and in practice it is improbable that they continued to receive their share of
the tithe. As a result comparatively few Levites returned from Babylonia with
Zerubbabel and Joshua (cf. Ezr. 2:40 with 2:36-39), and Ezra had great difficulty
in persuading any to accompany him (Ezr. 8:15—20).
466
LEVITE/ LIE
Nehemiah restored the tithe position (Neh. 10:37f.), but at an unspecified
period the tithes were taken from the Levites in favour of the priests, as is implied
by Josephus’ language (Life 15; Ant. 20, 8, 8). This is confirmed by Rab. sources
(Mullin 131; Yeb. 86). Their importance was further diminished by their teaching
functions being largely taken over by the scribes. In addition, the lower ranks of
temple servants, many of them descendants of slaves, gradually obtained the right
to call themselves Levites. This helps to explain the rarity of their mention in the
NT.
NT 1. Levi is found as a proper name 8 times in NT; viz. the son of Jacob 3 times
(Heb. 7:5,9, Rev. 7:7); two ancestors of Jesus (Lk. 3:24, 29); ason of Alphaeus,
presumably Matthew, three times (Mk. 2:14; Lk. 5:27, 29). Since in Jesus’ genealogy
Levi is presumably a purely personal name with no suggestion of Levitical origin,
there are no adequate grounds for supposing that Levi (Matthew) was of the tribe
of Levi.
2. Levites are referred to 3 times in NT.
(a) The leading Pharisees in Jerusalem (‘‘the Jews’’) sent priests and Levites to
question John the Baptist (Jn. 1:19). The choice was probably motivated by the
fact that the tribe of Levi generally had the divinely given privilege of teaching
(Deut. 33:10).
(b) A priest and a Levite are linked in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk.
10:31 f.). The suggestion of greater interest or humanity on the Levite’s part
conveyed by AV in contrast to RV and later translations is due to its use of an
inferior text.
(c) Barnabas, a native of Cyprus, was a Levite (Acts 4:36). It is impossible to
establish whether he functioned in the Jerusalem temple. The mention of Cyprus may
be a preparation for Acts 13:4-12; 15:39, in which case he may have moved to
Jerusalem as a young man; he had relations there (cf. Col. 4:10). If, on the other
hand, he had been won for Christ on a visit, and his home and property were in
Cyprus, then he would probably not have functioned in the temple.
3. Heb. 7:11 uses the term “‘the Levitical priesthood”’ as a variant to “‘the Aaronic
priesthood’’. It stresses that the priests were of the tribe of Levi, unlike the priest
for ever after the order of Melchizedek, who was of the tribe of Judah.
—> Melchizedek, —» Priest, -- Temple, —- Tent H. L. Ellison
R. Abba, “‘Priests and Levites”, /DB III 876-89; R. Brinker, The Influence of the Sanctuaries in
Early Israel, 1946; A. Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services, as they were at the Time
of Jesus Christ, 1874; A. K. Helmbold, “‘Levite”’, ZPEB III 912; D. A. Hubbard, ‘“‘Priests and
Levites’’, NBD 1028-34; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1969; Y. Kaufmann, The
Religion of Israel, 1960, 193-200; H. H. Rowley, “‘Early Levite History and the Question of the
Exodus’’, JNES 3, 1944, 73-78; H. Strathmann, Leu(e)i etc.,. TDNT IV 234-39; R. de Vaux,
Ancient Israel, 1961, 358-71 (see also bibliography 544 f.); G. E. Wright, ““The Levites in Deutero-
nomy’’, Vetus Testamentum 4, 1954, 325-30.
Lie, Hypocrite
In Gk. two different groups of words are used for lying, the antithesis of telling the
—> truth. hypokrin6d stems originally from the world of the theatre. In a positive
467
LIE
sense, it refers to the ‘‘answering” of the dialogue, and to the exposition and
interpretation in the play. In the negative, it is used of an actor who has not
identified himself with his réle. Hence, the meanings of play-acting, disguise, and
then hypocrisy (cf. the corresponding nouns hypokrisis, hypocrisy and hypokrités,
a hypocrite).
pseudomai, to lie, and pseudos, a lie, express the opposite of alétheia, truth, even
more clearly. The great number of compound words derived from the root pseud-
indicates the extent and the importance of the use of this idea in ancient and in
Christian literature.
: ; bmoK pivw (hypokrino), answer, pretend, dissimulate;
bIOK piv@ bn con Saenee ;
| bnoxpivo bm0K plaic (hypokrisis), pretence, hypocrisy; voK pityc
(hypokrités), pretender, hypocrite, a godless man; advundxpitoc (anhypokritos),
unfeigned, genuine.
CL hypokrino is a compound verb based on krind, judge (— Judgment). The mid.
form hypokrinomai is the one generally used. Its original meaning was to give
final judgment on a question; but it also came to mean to reply, expound, interpret
(e.g. dreams).
In secular Gk. these words have primary reference in the world of the theatre.
By hypokrités one should understand either the ‘“‘answerer’’ who appeared on stage
and turned the self-contained speeches of the chorus into dialogue form; or the
‘“‘interpreter’’ (Homer used the word in this sense) who explained the situation to
the audience. hypokrisis has various shades of meaning: reply, interpretation, play-
acting, and then also (via “‘réle-playing”’) appearance, hypocrisy, dissimulation.
anhypokritos is rarely used in secular literature, and indicates someone who is
inexperienced as an actor; and in a metaphorical sense unfeigned, genuine, simple.
oT 1. The LXX translates Heb. ‘anah by hypokrinomai, reply, in Job 39:32 [40:2].
The vb. occurs only rarely and then in late writings (Sir. 1:29; 35[32]:15;
36[33]:2; 2 Macc. 5:25; 6:21, 24; 4 Macc. 6:15, 17). hypokrités renders Heb.
hanép, someone estranged from God. This word, too, occurs only in Job 34:30;
36:13. hanép is also translated by anomos, lawless, and asebés, godless, in the LXX
(— Law; — Godliness).
The term denotes what elsewhere is graphically described as the man with a
“double heart’? and ‘“‘false lips’ (Ps. 12:3 f.); he always has God on his lips, but
keeps him far from his — heart (Jer. 12:2). Job 36:13 describes, the hypokrités
as an angry and taciturn man who is too proud to call for help when he needs it.
Such a man should not be in a position of authority, because he directs all his
efforts to the oppression of his subjects (Job 34:30).
2. There was a rabbinic saying that 90 per cent of all the hypocrisy in the world
was to be found in Jerusalem (SB I 718; cf. Jer. 23:15). Hypocrisy was one of the
chief sins denounced in Judaism. The — Pharisees were especially condemned,
because of their frequent hypocrisy (SB I 388 f., 921 ff.; IV 336 f.).
NT The NT uses these words exclusively in the metaphorical sense of hypocrisy;
they occur mainly in the Synoptic Gospels, especially in Matt. The vb. is only
468
LIE
_ found in Lk. 20:20, of the spies sent by the chief priests to trap Jesus; and in Gal.
2:13 in the compound form synhypokrinomai (‘And with him the rest of the Jews
acted insincerely [synhypekrithésan], so that even Barnabas was carried away by
their insincerity [hypokrisei]|’’). The noun hypokrisis is used in a variety of contexts;
hypokrités is the regular expression for wicked and godless people — the scribes and
Pharisees are particularly so described by Jesus. anhypokritos is chiefly linked with
agapé (—> love) and pistis (— faith).
1. The use of the vb. in Lk. 20:20 is close to the meaning to play a réle, act as if,
pretend: they made out that they were honest men (Vulg. simulare). Gal. 2:13 has a
similar reference: Peter did not remain true to his commission; he was playing a
double game, trimming his sails to the wind. Clear knowledge of the right course of
action is assumed; but it is the actual situation that gives the decisive judgment on
his behaviour, and thus Peter became a hypocrite.
2. Jesus called the attempts of his opponents to catch him out with their crafty
questions hypocrisy (Aypokrisis; cf. Matt. 22:18; Mk. 12:15). It involves a quite
deliberate pretence, similar to that of a stage performance. (In passing, it may be
noted that the attitude of the early Church to the theatre was overwhelmingly
negative. )
Exhortations in the Epistles, in such passages as 1 Tim. 4:2 and 1 Pet. 2:1, put
hypokrisis alongside lying (— pseudomai) and slander. It is the kind of behaviour
that attempts to cover up sin by putting oneself in a favourable light at the expense
of truth.
3. The noun hypokrités is found in the Gospels, exclusively on the lips of Jesus.
Matt. 15:7 ff. quotes Isa. 29:13 as prophetic of the Pharisees and scribes of Jesus’
day: ‘“You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people
honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship
me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men’ ”’ (cf. Mk. 7:6 f.).
The Pharisees were by no means the only ones to be so addressed. The epithet
applies to anyone who rejects the truth about God in Jesus (— Lead Astray, art.
planao). Through his teaching and actions Jesus revealed to men the unhappy
state of their delusion and sought to open their eyes to their true situation before
God. Hypocrisy is not simply a conscious act of dissimulation, but a perverse —
blindness. It is illustrated by the question in the Sermon on the Mount as to how
anyone can remove a speck from someone else’s eye when he has a log in his own
eye (Matt. 7:3 ff.; cf. Lk. 6:41 f.; SB F 446). Anyone who prays in public is doing
his religious duty, but Jesus warned against the hypocrisy of praying to be seen by
men. They should rather pray in secret and likewise give alms in secret (Matt. 6:5 ff.;
cf. 6:2 ff.). Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees because of their serious and pious
attitude towards the — law as such. Rather, it was their understanding of righteous-
ness and their ways of evading its demands that he condemned (— Gift, art.
korban). Moreover, the fact that the pious Jews did not recognize Jesus as the
fulfiller of the law showed how far they were from God (Matt. 15:2 ff. par. Mk.
7:5 ff.).
Pharisees and scribes (— Writing) were the prime examples of unbelief, being
unable to see beyond their own traditionalism and to interpret the signs of the
time (Lk. 12:56) because of their reliance on their own piety. Thus they remained
outside the coming — kingdom (Matt. 23:1-25:46; Mk. 12:37-40; Lk. 12:41-48;
469
LIE
20:45 ff.). Their characteristic feature is their “objective self-contradiction”’ (J.
Schniewind), or rather their self-deluding blindness (Matt. 23:16 ff.). Outwardly
they appeared to be men of God, but in reality they were sinners who were guilty in
God’s sight because they did everything possible to repel and ward off the salvation
which comes in Jesus. That is why Jesus characterized them as hypokritai in the
series of woes he pronounced on them which are scarcely without parallel in severity
(Matt. 23:13 ff.; cf. Lk. 11:42-52).
4. anhypokritos is an adj. only found in the Epistles. In 3 of the 6 instances it is
used to qualify love, agapé (Rom. 12:9; 2Cor. 6:6), and brotherly love, philadelphia
(1 Pet. 1:22). Such > love comes from an open and genuine heart without ulterior
motives. It does not deliberately put on show. The same is said of faith in two places
(1 Tim. 1:5; 2 Tim. 1:5). This adj. expresses the fact that — faith is not affected
by considerations of expediency. It grows spontaneously out of the union of the
Christian with the living Christ, and, rooted in the heart, it finds its expression in a
transparent life. This is also true of the — wisdom that comes from above (Jas.
3:17). W. Gutinther
55 wevoopial (pseudomai), lie, deceive by lying; wevdrc
(pseudés), deceitful, mendacious, a liar; weddoc (pseudos),
a lie; wevatyc (pseustés), a liar; Gwevdyc (apseudés), guileless, truthful.
CL Though these words occur in Gk. from the time of Homer, the etymology is not
clear. The noun pseudos means a lie, the antithesis of the — truth, alétheia
(cf. Plato, Hippias Minor 370e). The only part of the vb. used in the NT is the mid.
pseudomai, lie, or deceive by lying (12 instances). The following derivatives also
occur in the NT: (a) pseudés, untruthful, deceitful; and as a noun, liar (3 times);
(b) pseudos, lie (11 times); (c) ho pseustés, liar (11 times); (d) apseudés, candid
(once). Apart from compound words, such as pseudomartyred, give false witness,
which also occur in the Synoptics, there are a number of words beginning with
pseud- (false-) which are found mainly in Pauline and Johannine writings.
OT In the LXX pseudomai is primarily used to translate Heb. kahas, deny, disclaim,
act secretively, deceive, lie. pseudos is the equivalent of Heb. Seger, fraud,
deception, falsehood.
1. The OT proclaims that God is truthful. He and his word can be trusted
(— Faith, art. peithomai; — Truth). When salvation or calamity is prophesied, it is
also fulfilled. ““God is not a man that he should lie. .. . Has he said and will he not
do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?” (Num. 23:19; cf. 1 Sam. 15:29).
The God-ness of God is proved by the truth of his word and his faithfulness in —
fulfilling it.
2. Man, however, has fallen prey to a lie; he has dissociated himself from God, and
does not let him be the Lord who, in truth, he is. The — prophets make the accusa-
tion that God’s people have fallen prey to a lie. Instead of trusting their Lord, they
rely on their own strength and on political alliances. They listen to false prophets
(Jer. 5:31; Ezek. 13:19 and after), who flatter them and give them false prophecies
of salvation, who preach about “drinking and strong drink”’ (Mic. 2:11), and who
use whitewash over their sins (Ezek. 22:28; —> Black, White). Hosea proclaimed
470
LIE
the charge from God, “You have ploughed iniquity, you have reaped injustice,
you have eaten the fruit of lies’’ (10:13). The most serious accusation was that the
people have put their faith in idols instead of in God (— Image, art. eiddlon) which
the prophets call lies. ““Their lies have led them astray’’ (Amos 2:4). Lies have
become their refuge (Isa. 28:15), and they have renounced their God (Isa. 59:13;
Jer. 5:12). Lying, in the eyes of the prophets, is not so much an ethical offence as a
basic moral attitude, which turns its back on the true God. It therefore falls prey
to the delusion of the lie, as it does to the ‘‘nothingness”’ of existence (> Empty).
To put one’s trust in a delusory lie instead of in the true God is called by Isaiah a
“covenant with death” (28:15). God’s judgment falls on all who deny him and
preach lies: “Because you have uttered delusions and have seen lies, therefore
behold, I am against you, says the LoRD Gob”’ (Ezek. 13:8; cf. Isa. 28:17). Only a
remnant will survive God’s judgment — those ‘“‘who do no wrong and who speak no
lies” (Zeph. 3:13).
3. As in the prophets, so also in the Pss. those who turn from God are described
as liars. ““The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking
of lies” (Ps. 58:3). “I said in my alarm, All men are liars’’ (Ps. 116:11 RV mg.).
But the devout man holds firm to God: “‘Blessed is the man who makes the Lord
his trust, and does not turn to the proud, to those who go astray after false gods!
[MT kazab, lie; LXX manias pseudeis, lying fooleries]’’ (Ps. 40:4; MT 40:5; LXX
39:5). God makes an end of all liars (Ps. 5:6).
4. In the laws of the OT there is no explicit, general prohibition against lying,
but it can plainly be deduced from a whole collection of individual examples where
lying is specifically forbidden. Most notably, there is the command not to bear false
witness (Exod. 20:16; cf. Prov. 21:28). Such a thing would be particularly repre-
hensible, because, according to OT law, judgment can be given solely on the basis
of the evidence of two — witnesses (cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6f.; 19:15 ff.).
There are further prohibitions: against perjury (Lev. 19:12; — Deny) and against
embezzlement of stolen or lost property (Lev. 6:2f. [MT 5:21 f.]). Lev. 19:11
relates them: ‘‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.”
5. Rabbinic texts likewise declare that God has nothing to do with lies. He “‘cre-
ated everything in the world, except for lies, which he did not create... men
concieved those in their own hearts” (Pes.R. 24 (125b)). In San. 103a four groups of
men are named who will not see God: scoffers, hypocrites, liars and slanderers.
False evidence given against a neighbour is reckoned by God “‘as if you were to
declare that I had not created the world in six days” (Pes.R. 21 107b). To bear false
witness against a neighbour is to bear false witness against God.
6. What could be observed in the OT and in Rab. writings is stated even more
emphatically in the Qumran writings. Lies belong on the side of God’s adversary and
to the powers of darkness. The “ways of the spirit of falsehood”’ include ‘“‘wicked-
ness and lies” (1QS 4:9). Lies are the mark of those who belong to the godless
just as the members of God’s community are always called “‘‘sons of truth’’. Belial
(— Satan) uses lies to lead the godly astray from God; hence several times in CD
and 1QpHab a historical opponent of the sect who is mentioned is referred to as the
“Liar” or the ““Spouter of Lies’”’. But God saves the godly from the ‘‘jealousy of the
teachers of lies’ who “scheme against him a devilish scheme” (1QH 4:10). In the >
judgment all lies will be destroyed along with the powers of darkness, and men will
471
LIE
be cleansed from all their terrible delusions: for God will “‘sprinkle them with the
Spirit of Truth as one sprinkles water for purification.’’ But the godly man already
confesses: “I will not keep Belial within my heart, and in my mouth shall be heard
no folly or deceitful lie’? (1QS 10:22).
NT In the NT 15 different words contain the root pseud- (false). These are found in
nearly all the NT writings, but whereas the Synoptic Gospels make only very
sparing use of them, they play an important role in Johannine and Pauline writings.
Besides the simple use of vb., noun and adj. (pseudomai, lie; pseudos, lie; pseustés,
liar; pseudés, deceitful), which comprise the major part of the NT instances, there
are numerous compound words. These include: pseudadelphos, false brother (2
Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4; > Brother); pseudapostolos, false apostle (2 Cor. 11:13;
— Apostle); pseudodidaskalos, false teacher (2 Pet. 2:1; > Teach); pseudologos,
speaking lies (1 Tim. 4:2); pseudomartyria, false witness (Matt. 15:19; 26:59);
pseudomartys, one who gives false witness (Matt. 26:60; 1 Cor. 15:15; —- Witness);
pseudoprophéteés, false prophet (Matt. 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mk. 13:22; Lk. 6:26; Acts
13:6; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Jn. 4:1; Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10; ~ Prophet); and pseudo-
christos, false Christ (Matt. 24:24; Mk. 13:22). |
1. (a) The NT takes up the OT witness to the truthfulness and truth of God.
Tit. 1:2 speaks of God as the apseudés theos, God who does not lie. God’s — truth
does not come to light in the unveiling of being in the way that the Greeks under-
stood alétheia. Rather, God’s truth is to be seen as truthfulness in the way that he
keeps faith with his — promises in history. This was the way that Israelites stressed
the unchangeable nature of God’s decrees. God added the guarantee of an oath to
his promise, “‘so that through two unchangeable things [i.e. the promise and the
oath] in which it is impossible that God should prove false, we who have fled for
refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us” (Heb.
6:18). Since the God who raised Jesus from the dead is the source of truth, Paul
could defend himself by claiming in the last resort that God knows that he is not
lying (2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:20).
(b) The revelation of God’s truth in Jesus Christ lets the other side of the picture
come to light — the lies of men. For men have ‘“‘exchanged the truth about God for a
lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25).
(On this see further G. Bornkamm, “The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans
1-3), Early Christian Experience, 1969, 47-70.) The revelation of God’s wrath
against human wickedness (Rom. 1:18-3:20) leads in Rom. 3:4 to the confession:
*““Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, “That thou mayest be
justified in thy words, and prevail when thou art judged’ ”’ (cf. Ps. 116:1 LXX;
Zeph. 3; Ps. 51:4 ff.). “Paul, following the Psalmist, pictures a scene in court, where
God and men plead against each other; when this happens God is sure to leave the
court in the right” (C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
1957, 63).
2. (a) John’s Gospel presents a radical dualism of God and the devil in terms of
truth and lie, in a manner similar to that of the Qumran texts, which in their way
sharpened the OT outlook. Jn. 8:44 describes the devil as a murderer and a liar.
Lying and death stand opposed to the truth and life of the Revealer. Lying, here,
does not simply mean telling untruths; it connotes the will which is directed against
472
LIE
God, the hatred of disbelief, and the resulting futility. Bultmann interprets this in
existentialist terms. “It is because of this nothingness that the pseudos kills, because
it robs the man who imagines it is real of his own authenticity” (R. Bultmann, The |
Gospel of John, 1971, 321). See also Jn. 8:41-47, where Jesus accuses his opponents
of lying. In Jn. pseudos is not primarily a moral offence; it connotes the hatred
which disbelief feels for the truth of the Revealer. Such lying can quite easily think
of itself as the height of piety, and it is this that makes it so terrible. It happens
everywhere, where men seek their own glory and put up barriers to resist Christ’s
revelation.
(b) This thought is expanded in | Jn. The lie here is that men “make God a liar’,
when they maintain that they have not sinned (1:10; cf. 5:10). 1 Jn. is also directed
against false teachers who preach lies (cf. Rev. 2:2), denying Jesus as the Christ
(1 Jn. 2:22). In the Johannine literature “‘lie’’ is used in the widest sense to mean
hatred of Christ, and in consequence man’s life without God, characterized by
delusion and death.
3. (a) The antithesis of truth and lie is not only the determining factor which
distinguishes between Jesus’ disciples and his enemies. It also operates within the
church of Christ in the responses of obedience and disobedience (— Hear) to the
word of truth. As an ethical problem, lying is not on the same level as quarrelsome-
ness or unchastity. These belong to the imperfect state of man on earth and as such
stand in continual need of sanctification (— Holy). But lying, like loving, is the
expression of one of the basic aspects of the human condition which is determined
either by the power of lies or by the power of love. ““Why has Satan filled your
heart to lie to the Holy Spirit ?” (Acts 5:3). The sin of Ananias was not that he had
witheld his property, for he was entitled to dispose of it as he pleased, but that he
had lied to God in professing to have given it all to the church whilst retaining
something for himself (Acts 5:4).
(b) In | Jn., men’s false evaluation of themselves in relation to God (see above
2 (a)) means that any contradiction between the confession of faith (— Confess)
and the life of the members of a congregation involves them in lies. To profess
fellowship with Christ is incompatible with a continued — walk in darkness (1:6).
To profess knowledge of Christ 1s incompatible with simultaneous disobedience to
his commands (2:4). To profess to love God is incompatible with continuing to
hate one’s brother (4:20). In such cases both the claims and the life of a Christian
become a lie, excluding him from the truth of God. Here, too, it is apparent that
for 1 Jn. lying is not only a moral offence, but also the manifestation of existence
without God.
(c) The admonitions in Eph. and Col. have individual faults in mind, when their
readers are told to throw off falsehood and to speak the truth to each other (Eph.
4:25; Col. 3:9). This command can be made, because the Christian has put off
“the old man [ton palaion anthrépon]’ (Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9) and may put on “‘the
new man”’ [ton kainon anthropon]’ (Eph. 4:24; cf. Col. 3:10), and is therefore in
the position to stop lying. Rev. also understands lying in specific terms: no liar
(pseudeés) or perpetrator of horrible deeds will enter the new — Jerusalem (21:8; cf.
21:27; 22:15). Those who belong to the Lamb stand opposed to liars: “‘No lie was
found on their lips” (14:5). ({Ed.] But as in Jn. and 1 Jn. there is the overtone that
lying and falsehood stand in fundamental opposition to God. Thus the Jews at
473
Ligé/LIFE
Philadelphia are described as “‘the synogogue of Satan’’, who claim to be Jews but
lie [3:9]. See also the references to the false prophet [pseudoprophétés; 16:13;
19:20; 20:10] who leads men to oppose God and the church and who likewise has
no part in the new Jerusalem.)
4. In conclusion, we can say that God is the truthful One who is faithful in history
and who fulfills his word and his promises. When he reveals himself in Christ,
man’s godlessness is unmasked and seen to be the lie that it is. A lie is not simply
a single act: it is an attitude of existence which determines the whole of life. Because
it resists the one who gives life, it is the deceitful accomplice of — death. Such an
existence in the “‘lie’? manifests itself in individual lies which reveal who is in
control of men. Man without God is trapped in lies, unable to see through the
deception and destined for death. Only where the lie is exposed by the truth of
Christ and man comes under the Lordship of Christ and becomes a new man can
the counterfeit existence based on deceit and untruth be overcome. This is the
basis of the Christian ethical demand to stop telling lies.
—» Lead Astray, — Pharisee, — Truth U. Becker, H.-G. Link
(a). W. Beilner, ‘““Hypocrite”, EBT II 390 ff.; H. Conzelmann, pseudos etc., TDNT IX 594-603; D.
Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972; M. D. Hooker, ‘‘Were there false teachers at Colossae?”’ in
B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. In Honour of Charles
Francis Digby Moule, 1973, 315-32; T. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood: A Study in the Theology
of the Book of Jeremiah, 1970; S. van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew, 1972; U. Wilckens,
hypokrinomai etc., TDNT VIII 559-71.
(b). W. Beilner, Christus und die Pharisder, 1959, 227-35; H. D. Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und
die sokratische Tradition. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner ‘‘Apologie’’ 2 Korinther 10-13,
BHTh 45, 1972; G. Bornkamm, ‘‘Heuchelei”, RGG* III 305 f.; G. F. Else, Wiener Studien 72,
1959, 75-107; P. Jotion, ‘‘hypokrités dans l’évangile et hébreu hanaf”, Recherches de Science
Religieuse 20, 1930, 312-17; J. Klein, E. Fuchs, G. Gawlick, ‘““Wahrhaftigkeit, Wahrheit”, RGG®
VI 1511 ff.; M. A. Klopfenstein, Die Liige nach dem Alten Testament, 1964; and kahas, THAT J
825-28; W. G. Ktimmel, “‘Die Weherufe tiber die Schriftgelehrten und Pharisder (Mt. 23, 13-26),
Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament?”, Abhandlungen zum christlich-jtidischen Dialog, II, 1967,
141 f.; L. Lemme, “‘Heuchelei”, RE III 21 ff.; A. Lesky, ““Hypokrites’’, Festschrift U. E. Paollt,
1964, 469-76; J. Maier, ‘“Weitere Stiicke aus dem Nahumkommentar aus der Hohle 4 von Qum-
ran’”’, Judaica 18, 1962, 2-5—50; J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus, NTD 2, 1968};
N. H. See, ““Wahrhaftigkeit”, EKL III 1716 ff.
Life
The term life denotes the organic functioning of plants, animals and men. Life and
—» death are the opposite categories basic to all living things; both categories
relate to and interpret the other. Human life is unique. It is not merely instinctive
but is capable of self-realization and open to formative influences. In Gk. a dis-
tinction is made between zoé which tends to mean life as a vital, natural force, and
bios which has a stronger ethical content and means manner of life. It is instructive
that the NT takes over the first of these two words to denote that fellowship with
God which men enjoy as a specific gift from God himself. For further information
on the Gk. and the biblical views — Death.
[soe SSS Bioc (bios), life; Bida@ (biod), live; Bia@tixdc (bidtikos),
| Bios pertaining to life.
474
LIFE
CL The noun bios (since Homer; derived from the corresponding vb. biod and
related to Lat. vivere, live, and Eng. “quick’’) denotes life in its concrete out-
ward manifestations. It is used generally for “‘lifetime’’ or ‘‘duration of life”
(Plato, Symp. 181d, 203d; Leg. 6, 770a; 7, 802a), and specifically for an individual’s
way of life, which, however, is seen not as a once-for-all historical event but as a
“type” of supertemporal behaviour existing alongside other possible “‘types”’
(Plato, Leg. 2, 663b; Rep. 617d ff.). The Greeks’ ethical view of life is expressed
with great clarity by Aristotle, who distinguishes between the following ways of
life: pleasure-loving (apolaustikos); active (praktikos) or political (politikos); and
contemplative (thedrétikos) (Eth.Nic. 1, 3p 1095b, 14 ff.). Later bios acquired the
concrete meanings livelihood, trade, wealth (cf. bidtikos, pertaining to life, every-
day, Polybius 4, 73, 8; Diogenes Laertius 7, 22; Epictetus, Dissertationes 1, 26, 3,
7).
oT In the LXX bios usually translates yamim, days, the plural of y6m, day, when it
renders a Heb. equivalent. Following OT historical thought, the LXX adopts
mainly the temporal meaning of bios, i.e. the duration of life (cf. the Heb. expression
‘‘a man’s days’’). The word does not occur at all in the Pentateuch or the Prophets,
while in Cant. 8:7 it means wealth, and in Prov. 31:14 food.
The meaning of the word is clearest in Job, where it occurs 13 times. Man’s life,
in all its wretchedness, is likened to forced labour (7:1), a shadow (8:9), vanity
(7:16), sorrow (15:20). By contrast, Wisdom promises the godly man length of life
(Prov. 3:2), a gift which she holds in her right hand (Prov. 3:16), while the godless
are punished with a short fleeting life (Wis. 2:1, 4, 5).
In 4 Macc., Hel. influence replaces the temporal meaning of bios with an ethical
meaning. Just as Aristotle had applied a variety of adjs. to the noun (see above CL),
so 4 Macc. describes it as a way of life which is true to the law (nomimos, 5:36;
7:15); upright (orthos, 1:15); pleasant (hédys, 8:23); even divine (theios, 7:7).
NT Unlike zdé, bios is surprisingly rare in the NT, occurring only 11 times (bi06
only once, | Pet. 4:2). All three meanings normal in profane Gk. are to be
found, but with characteristic shifts of emphasis.
1. bios has a clearly temporal meaning (duration of life) only in the Koine version
of 1 Pet. 4:3; likewise biod in the previous verse. In | Tim. 2:2 and 2 Tim. 2:4 it has
the more general sense of (everyday) life, a meaning shared on occasion with zdé.
2. The NT uses bios mostly (6 times) in the concrete, somewhat external sense
which it had acquired in late antiquity: that of wealth, fortune. Mk. 12:44 and
Lk. 21:4 speak of the poor widow putting “her whole living”’ into the treasury,
while Lk. 15:12, 30 tells of the prodigal son wasting his living on harlots. Similarly,
according to 1 Jn. 3:17, real love shows itself in the concrete act of sharing this
world’s goods with a brother in need.
3. The specifically Gk. use of bios to mean “‘manner of life’ (see above CL) is
only hinted at in the NT. “The pride of life’ in 1 Jn. 2:16 refers to ostentatious
living, and in Lk. 8:14 there is an allusion to “the cares, riches and pleasures of
life’. In other words, the NT attitude here is purely negative. The reason why this
specifically Gk. conception of bios is not adopted by the NT is that according to
the latter, man does not live his life for himself or to develop his own virtues, but
is answerable to God for living in the service of others. H.-G. Link
475
LIFE
; Can (ze), life; Caw (zad), live; C@ov (zdon), living crea-
Con oe : ae
ture; Cwoyovéw (zdogoned), procreate, give life to, keep
alive; C~onolém (zdopoied), make alive, give life to.
CL zad, contracted to zd, and its corresponding noun zdé, are both found from
Homer onwards. Somewhat later, during the period of Herodotus and the
precursors of Socrates, the noun zdon appears, covering men (/ogika zoa, rational
creatures) and animals (aloga zoa, irrational creatures) as distinct from inanimate
objects. Apart from its use in Heb. 13:1] and 2 Pet. 2:12, zdon in the NT is confined
to Rev. and refers to the four living creatures by the heavenly throne (—> Cherub).
The two compound vbs. zdogoneo and zoopoied stem from a still later period, that
of Aristotle and Theophrastus. Both vbs. refer to the life-processes of nature,
usually the procreation of animals and the growth of plants. This is particularly
true of zoogoneo, which therefore occurs sporadically and only incidentally in the
NT. zdopoied, on the other hand, is a more technical word occasionally used in
soteriological contexts where there is no reference to natural history.
1. In classical Gk., life refers in the first place to that living quality of — nature
which is shared alike by men, animals and plants (for what follows cf. R. Bultmann,
TDNT I 832-43). For the Greeks, therefore, life belongs to the category of natural
science, being characterized by the power of self-movement as distinct from
mechanical movement (Plato, Leg. 10, 895c ff; Phaedr. 245c ff.; Aristotle, An. 2,
2 p 412b, 16f.; p 413a, 22 ff.). The cause of life is considered to be the psyché
(— soul), which Diogenes of Apollonia imagined as an étherial substance (aér),
while Xenophanes thought of it as a fluttering breath (pneuma) (H. Diels, Die
Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 1, 425, 42). Just as psyché and z0dé belong very closely
together in Gk. thought, so do psyché and soma (—> body) (Plato, Phaedr. 105c ff. ;
Aristotle, An. 2, |p 412b, 7 ff.); natural life is made up of the components soul and
body.
Not only each single individual but also the whole universe is thought of as a
living organism (z6on empsychon, Plato, Tim. 30b) or as a world with a soul (kosmos
empsychos). Even the gods are imagined largely as living creatures (zda) having bi-
partite natures analogous to the human body and soul (Aristotle, Metaph. 11, 7 p
1072b, 28 ff.). Thus Plato distinguishes between living creatures which are thnéta
(mortal, i.e. men), and athanata (immortal, i.e. gods) (Tim. 38c ff.).
The Greeks considered a third component to be specific to human life, namely,
the —> reason, mind, or understanding (nous). While the s6ma and to some extent
the psyché go to make up natural life, the nous is a divine element which enters
human life from outside, enhancing it beyond the natural life e.g. of animals and
producing a type of existence capable of various alternatives (— bios). This idea
is expressed not merely by the variety of dative constructions which can be found
with zaé (e.g. patridi for the fatherland, Demosthenes, Orationes 7:17; patri, for
one’s father, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 3, 17, 7), but also by the adjs., advs. and
preps. which can be added and which qualify “‘life’’ as being good (agathé), orderly
(kosmi6s), reasonable (kata logon) or bad (aischra) (Plato, Rep. 521a; Leg. 7, 806e;
3, 944c).
2. Among the Stoics the slogan kata physin zén, to live according to nature,
assumed great importance. This phrase, however, does not imply instinctive
476
LIFE
existence, but rather life which is virtuous (ka?t’ aretén) or lived according to reason
(kata logon), and which enables the man who is otherwise “‘dead’’ to fulfil the
purpose of his existence (eu zén, to live well; cf. Epictetus, Dissertationes, 1, 9, 19;
2, 9, 7f.; 3, 1, 25f.; 4, 11, 3). The phrase — bios kata physin, life according to
nature, is also found, in this same sense. Whereas the Greeks of the classical period
saw their ideal as active involvement in the public affairs of the polis, in the Hellen-
istic period the Stoics idealized complete withdrawal from the outward bustle of
the world, and the cultivation of one’s own inner life.
3. While the Stoics distinguished between outward and inward life, neo-Platon-
ism differentiated between life in this world and life beyond this world. According
to Plotinus, man indeed possesses natural life, but the life which is perfect (teleia)
and true (aléthiné) is to be found only in the one divine realm of the One (hen).
The way to this true life leads via abnegation of the body, and cleansing (katharsis)
from all earthly things, to the moment of sight or vision (thea), when man attains
the true life and becomes one with it (cf. Plotinus, Enneads 1, 4, 3; 6, 7, 31; and
often). In other words, life is seen as an upward ascent.
4. Gnosticism, by contrast, saw life as a descent. zdé, often associated with phos,
light (e.g. Corp.Herm. 1, 12), is something essentially divine, a tangible fluid in the
divine world, definitely a physical entity, but at the same time something indes-
tructible and possessed of lifegiving power; in a word immortality (athanasia;
Corp.Herm. 1, 28). In the human world this pure divine life is intermingled with
matter, being imprisoned in the body. It is not present in its fullness but only’in the
form of tiny, scattered sparks of life. Hence, one must break free from the prison-
house of the body in order to enjoy, at least temporarily, the ecstatic vision (gndsis,
— knowledge), i.e. to attain to the unity which exists between the inner sparks of
life and the supernatural life of the divine world (Corp.Herm. 1, 6). This true life 1s
attained on earth only in fleeting moments of — ecstasy. Its full enjoyment must
be reserved for the future, when all the particles of life and light presently scattered
within matter reunite in the divine world (Corp.Herm. 12, 15:14, 10; and passim).
Thus in the history of Gk. philosophy two trends are visible within this area of
thought: first, true life is progressively divorced from concrete, everyday events and
transferred to a supernatural, divine world; and secondly, life is increasingly seen
as something tangible, ‘scientific’, so that true human life manifests itself not so
much in the continuum of historical events as in discontinuous moments of
ecstatic vision, totally divorced from history.
OT 1. The relevant Heb. vocabulary is as follows: noun, hayyim; vb., hayah; adj.,
hay. The Israelites in the OT viewed life as something thoroughly natural, vital
and pertaining to this world. The Gk. division of life into body, soul and reason
was a completely alien concept to them. It is true that in Heb. nepes, soul (e.g. Jos.
10:28), or basar, flesh, (e.g. Gen. 6:13) can be used in place of hayyim. But when this
occurs it is an example not of analytical Gk. thought but of the synthetic oriental
approach, where the part represents the whole, and where the whole of human life
is included but viewed from a given standpoint. In those passages where the life is
said to be the — blood (Lev. 17:14 LXX: hé... psyché pasés sarkos haima autou
estin; cf. Lev. 17:11; Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23), this is to be understood not as a
scientific statement, but rather as an assumption made against the background of
477
LIFE
early oriental ritual (cf. the rite of the Passover in Exod. 12). The aim is to draw
attention not so much to a life at man’s disposal but rather to the fact that life is
not man’s to dispose of. The Israelites thought of life not as a natural or scientific
phenomenon, but primarily as duration, the days of a man’s life which are granted
him by Yahweh, the Lord of life (Gen. 25:7; 47:28; Deut. 32:39; — bios oT).
Long life was considered to be special evidence of the divine — blessing promised
to the obedient (Gen. 15:15; 25:8; Deut. 5:16; 30:19; Prov. 3:1 f.; cf. 2 Ka.
20:1 ff.). The power of death, on the other hand, invades human life in the form of
sickness, hatred or loneliness (Ps. 18:5 f.; 33:19; 56:13; 116:8; — Death or). In
common with orientals generally, the Israelites were strangers to the Gk. ideal of a
life which is aloof and contemplative (thedrétikos; cf. bios cL). Rather, their ideal
was a life of active involvement, a life expressed, e.g. by — hunger and thirst (e.g.
Jdg. 15:18 f.), > hatred and — love (e.g. Gen. 24:27), — desires and lusts (e.g.
1 Sam. 1; 2 Sam. 13). To the Israelites, as to orientals in general, the sheer vitality,
concreteness and diversity of life were a source of the utmost delight (1 Ki. 3:11 ff.;
Prov. 3:16; Job 2:4); life synonymous with health, well-being and success (Mal.
2:5; Prov. 2:19; Ps. 56:13; Eccl. 9:9). An essential feature of life, however, was
attendance at the sanctuary. Here the worshipper joined in fellowship with the
living in praising Yahweh, the Creator of life, and was even granted the occasional
privilege of gazing upon him albeit indirectly (Exod. 33:18 ff.; Ps. 27:4; 65:5;
84:5; 142:7; see below oT, 5). Only in extreme despair was there any thought of
death which would put an end to a life that had become intolerable (Jer. 20:14 ff. ;
Job 3:11 f.; Tob. 3:10).
2. While the Israelites were unanimous in their conviction that Yahweh is to be
praised as the author of life Jer. 17:13; Ps. 36:9; 139:13 ff.), the Yahwist’s reflec-
tions on the origin of life produce some idiosyncratic statements on related issues
not otherwise touched on in the OT. According to Gen. 2:7, Yahweh formed man
from the dust of the ground and breathed divine breath into the lifeless body so
that he became a living being (nepes hayydh). Here the distinction is not, as the
LXX translation psyché zosa (living soul) suggests, between the body and the soul,
but rather between the — body and the life. The whole physical, emotional and
intellectual life of man stems from God. If he withdraws his breath of life, then
man crumbles to dust (Ps. 104:29 f.; Job 34:14 f.; cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament
Theology, I, 1962, 149; and Genesis, 1963", 71-83).
The trials and tribulations common to man — toil and failure, shame and fear,
the pains of childbirth — are said by the Yahwist to have been caused by man’s
primeval fall into sin (Gen. 3). That which the Yahwist sees as divine punishment
is not so much death (which before the Exile was accepted as one of the given
factors of the human situation; cf. Gen. 2:17; 3:19); rather it is the shortening of the
life span (Gen. 6:3), and in particular the various trials of life. These are the dis-
cords which mar all human existence, the original harmony of life having been
broken (cf. von Rad, Genesis, 83-99).
3. The specifically Israelite view of life is expressed most clearly in Deut. At the
—> feast commemorating the renewal of the — covenant, the worshipping com-
munity is confronted by the word of Yahweh with a choice between life and death
(Deut. 30:1-20). The obedient are promised blessing, prosperity and life, while the
disobedient can expect nothing but curse, adversity and death (Deut. 30:15, 19).
478
LIFE
The living power of God’s word extends even to man’s physical existence: ‘““Man
does not live by bread alone, but ... by everything that proceeds out of the mouth
of Yahweh’’ (Deut. 8:3). Deut. is most insistent that true life comes not from
magical rites and ceremonies but from keeping the word of Yahweh. For this word
“is no trifle, but it is your life’? (Deut. 32:47; cf. Lev. 18:5).
4. In the same way the prophets call Israel back to Yahweh; this is Israel’s only
chance of life, threatened as he is with imminent disaster (Amos 5:4, 14). Isaiah
‘laments over the scoffers among the people who have entered into a covenant with
death (Isa. 28:15). Jeremiah sets the way of life and of death (Jer. 21:8) once more
before a faithless Israel, that has forsaken the source of life (Jer. 2:13; 17:13).
Ezekiel stresses repeatedly that the righteous man shall live, while the godless man
must die (Ezek. 3:18 ff.; 14:20; 18:4, 9, 13, 17, 20 ff.; 33:11; 37:5). Here the gift
of natural life becomes an integral part of the — covenant, obedience to which
means prosperity and blessing, while the transgressor forfeits his right to live. The
accounts of Ezek.’s visions occasionally contain the phrase riiah hahayydh (LXX
pneuma zoés), which is a paraphrase for the creative, life-giving power of God
(Ezek. 1:20 f.; 10:17; 37:5, 10).
Jeremiah’s distinction between the two ways is taken up in the wisdom litera-
ture, where — Wisdom offers to guide men along the pathway to life, while the
ways of — folly lead to death (Prov. 2:18 f.; 3:2, 18; 4:4, 10, 22; 5:6; 6:23; 8:35;
9:11, 18 and passim).
5. In the Psalms Yahweh is portrayed as he who gives life and delivers from >
death (Ps. 16:11; 27:1; 31:4f. and passim). With the passage of time, however,
godly men increasingly found that their expectations of long life and prosperity
were utterly contradicted by their day-to-day experiences. Hence in later Pss. the
traditional view of life becomes relative, and true life is seen as arising from fellow-
ship with Yahweh. ““Thy loving kindness is better than life’ (Ps. 63:3). Life is now
viewed metaphorically in terms of spirituality and life-mysticism (G. von Rad,
The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966, 258 f.) which seeks refuge
and finds satisfaction in living fellowship with Yahweh (Ps. 16:5, 9 ff.; 23; 36:8 ff.).
Ps. 73 goes a step further. The assurance of Yahweh’s nearness, and the sense of
security which this brings, give the worshipper a hope beyond death: “‘My flesh
and my heart may fail, but God is... my portion for ever”’ (Ps. 73:26). Faced with
the necessity of justifying the ways of God to men, and persuaded of Yahweh’s
faithfulness to his covenant promises, the OT believer finds himself being led to
hope for better things beyond the grave, i.e. his view of life becomes eschatological.
“Wholly apart from magic and mythology there grew up a confidence based simply
and solely upon the certainty of an irrefragable relationship with God’’ (G. von
Rad, op. cit., 264; cf. Ps. 49:16; Job 19:25 ff.; — Death, art. thanatos, OT 2 (e)).
In apocalyptic the hope of a future life, hitherto held by individual psalmists,
has become an expectation of future resurrection now held by the whole nation
(Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; cf. SB I, 885 f.; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of
Jewish Apocalyptic 200 B.C.—A.D. 100, 1964, 353-90).
6. The LXX frequently reinterprets the OT view of life in terms of the Gk. z0é
(cf. LXX Deut. 32:39; Ps. 55:14 [56:13]; 118 [119]; Prov. 16:15; Job 19:25;
33:30).
To a large extent, late Judaism adopted the OT view of life (Meg. 27b; Taan.
479
LIFE
20b; Ber. 55a; cf. SB IV 267, 275, 629), but under Hellenistic influence true life
was increasingly seen as the gift of eternal life (zdé aidnios), life without end (4
Macc. 7:19; 15:3; 16:25; 17:12; 18:19; and often). Hence, as in the NT, eternal
life could be referred to simply as zoé (Test.Jud. 25:1) or zén (Pss.Sol. 15:15). From
the Maccabean period onwards belief in a hereafter, — resurrection and eternal
life was widespread among Jewish theologians (cf. SB III 481 ff.). As in gnosticism,
so also in late Judaism zéé is frequently found in association with phos, light, and
gnosis, knowledge (cf. Hos. 10:12 LXX).
In Hellenistic Judaism belief in the — resurrection of the dead was largely
replaced by the doctrine of the immortality of the — soul (Wis. 8:19 f.; Josephus,
War 7, 8, 7). Earthly life lost significance (Wis. 4:8 f.), or was even regarded as the
prison-house of the soul (Philo, Leg. A//. 2, 57; 3, 21, 151); the act of dying gained
ever-increasing significance (4 Macc. 15:12; 2 Macc. 8:21; Josephus, War 7, 8, 7),
and true life, i.e. life which is athanatos, immortal, was transferred to the world
beyond (4 Macc. 15:3; Pss.Sol. 3:16; Philo, Op.Mund. 155 f.).
On the other hand, the usage found in the Qumran texts is strikingly similar to
that of the OT, the only new feature being the rather formal association of life with
the blessings of salvation (1QS 3:7; 4:7; 1 QH 2:20, 31; 9:66; 1QM 1:9; 12:3;
CD 3:20). |
NT References to the important matter of life occur, as one might expect, in all the
books of the NT. It is in the theology of Paul and of John that the doctrine of
life is most clearly expressed, and it is evident that the NT teaching contains ele-
ments which are of OT, late Jewish and also Gk. origin.
1. (a) The OT view of life is recalled most strongly in the Synoptic Gospels.
Natural life is regarded as a priceless possession (Mk. 8:37). Jesus is frequently
called upon to exercise his power in order that sick or dying men might live (Mk.
5:23, aorist zésé, that she may live; cf. Jn. 4:47 ff.) or even to restore to earthly
life those who are already dead (Mk. 5:35 ff.; Lk. 7:11 f.; Jn. 11:1 ff.). As in the
OT, temporal categories are used for life (Lk. 1:75; cf. Heb. 7:3; Rom. 7:1 ff.),
which is regarded as something dynamic, but at the same time bounded and tran-
sient (Acts 17:28; Jas. 4:14). It is no merely natural occurrence, but an event which
can succeed or fail (Lk. 15:13, asdtos zén, to live dissolutely; 2 Tim. 3:12, eusebds
zen, to live a god-fearing life). True life depends on the word of God (Matt. 4:4,
quoting Deut. 8:3), while to live away from God is described as being dead (Lk.
15:24, 32). The basic necessities of life, such as food and clothing, are by no means
despised; rather they are gratefully received as gifts of the Creator (Matt. 6:25 ff. ;
Lk. 12:15). God, who can kill and make alive (Matt. 10:28; Rom. 4:17), 1s the
undisputed Creator (Acts 17:25), the Lord (Lk. 12:20; Acts 10:42; Jas. 4:15) and
the embodiment of life; he is the living God (Matt. 16:16; 26:63) and the God of the
living (Matt. 22:32; Mk. 12:27; Lk. 20:38).
(b) Over against the present life there stands the life to come (Mk. 10:30; 1 Tim.
4:8, ““Godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life
and also for the life to come [z6és tés nyn kai tés mellousés|’’). It is described as
“eternal life’ (zoé aidnios; Matt. 19:16; par. Mk. 10:17, Lk. 18:18; Matt. 25:46;
cf. 2 Tim.,1:10, zdé kai aphtharsia, life and immortality). One attains this not by
reason of the immortality of the soul — this Gk. idea is completely foreign to the
480
LIFE
NT — but as a gift from God who raises the dead (Matt. 22:31 f. par. Mk. 12:26f.,
Lk. 20:36 f.). The fact that the future life is occasionally referred to by the use of zdé
alone, i.e. without any qualifying phrase (see above OT 6), indicates that such life
is regarded as real and true, the very life of God himself (Matt. 18:18; Mk. 9:43,
45). There is no implication here, however, of the devaluation of earthly life found
in later Hellenism. On the contrary, man’s relationship to God’s will in this
present life determines his destiny in the life to come (Matt. 19:16 par. Mk. 10:17,
Lk. 18:18; Lk. 10:25). Matt. 7:13 f. (cf. Lk. 13:23 f.) takes up the idea of the
two ways found in Deut. 30:19; Jer. 21:8, Wisdom and inter-Testamental literature,
Qumran and later Christian writings (cf. Prov. 8:20; 9:6; 12:15; 16:25; 2 Esd.
7:7 ff.; Test.Ash. 1:3, 5; Pirke Aboth 2:12 f.; 1QS 3:20; Did. 1:1; Barn. 18:1; —
Walk, art. hodos; see also above oT 4). This close relationship between the present
and the future life is put most impressively in the parable of the last — judgment
(Matt. 25:31 ff.): the disobedient will suffer eternal punishment, while the righteous
will enter into eternal life (Matt. 25:46).
2. (a) Paul’s view of life is deeply affected by the — resurrection of Christ from
the dead (1 Cor. 15:4), which, being an accomplished fact, has proved the power of
divine life over death (Rom. 14:9). The apostle sees Christ as the very embodiment
of God’s living power, conquering death and raising the dead (2 Cor. 13:4). Life
means Christ’s everlasting life, life from the dead and beyond the grave.
Through his resurrection Christ, the Last - Adam, has become the author of
a new life for mankind (Rom. 5:12 ff.; | Cor. 15:20 ff.). The life of Christians is
not their own life but the life of Christ: Christ lives in them (Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:21),
they live the life of Christ (2 Cor. 4:10). Their life is justified by Christ (Rom. 5:18),
and by his life they will be saved (Rom. 5:10). The life of Christ is mediated to
Christians neither as a power (as with the gnostics), nor through mystic union,
but by the — word of life (Phil. 2:16; cf. 2 Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:2 f.) and by the creative
power of the quickening — Spirit (Rom. 8:2, 6, 10 f.; 1 Cor. 15:45).
(b) The new Spirit-wrought life of believers (Rom. 6:4) does not try to escape
from everyday life into Stoic or gnostic indifference and asceticism. Rather, as
Paul sees it, the Christian is to serve his fellow-men responsibly, in whatever his-
torical situation he finds himself. Since he no longer lives for himself (Rom. 14:7;
2 Cor. 5:15), but for God (Rom. 6:10 f.) and Christ (Rom. 14:8; 2 Cor. 5:15), his
life shows positive, tangible results (Gal. 5:25, 26) as he follows in the footsteps of
Christ and takes up Christ’s > cross (2 Cor. 4:9 f.). Hence, Paul can make the
paradoxical statement: “We are treated .. . as dying, and behold we live’’ (2 Cor.
6:8 f.), since life comes from and through death. Not living for oneself means
having an attitude of love for others (Rom. 13:8—10; 14:11 ff.). It is important to
notice the datives and syn-constructions which Paul uses with zad, in order to
teach that “‘living for...’ and “‘living with .. .”’ belong to the very structure of life.
(c) In the believer’s new life there is a tension between present and future,
indicative and imperative (Gal. 5:25). His new life exists already but has not yet
been fully manifested (Col. 3:3, 4). Christ’s — resurrection is the pledge of our
own future resurrection to an eternal life where death and all the imperfections of
the present creation will be things of the past (Rom. 8:18 ff.). ““For as in Adam all
die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (zdopoiéthésontai, 1 Cor. 15:22; —>
Adam).
481
LIFE
The new life is not confined to historical time, but points forward to eternal life
when the last enemy, death, is vanquished (1 Cor. 15:26, 28; Rom. 6:22; Gal. 6:8).
Paul depicts the transition from temporal to eternal life in terms of cosmic drama,
miraculous transformation and rapture (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Cor. 15:20 ff., 35 ff,
51 ff.). In this he is following apocalyptic tradition, using apocalyptic imagery and
symbolism. He does not engage, however, in the speculations of late Judaism, but
confines himself to figurative hints concerning the form which the future life will
take. It will be a bodily life (1 Cor. 15:35 ff.; 2 Cor. 5:1 ff.; note that the Jews
could not conceive of life in a disembodied state; — Body). It will involve seeing
—» face to face (1 Cor. 13:12; cf. 2 Cor. 5:7), entering into the fullness of —
righteousness, — peace and — joy (Rom. 14:17), > glory (doxa, 2 Cor. 3:8 f.) or
glorification (Rom. 8:17), but above all being with Christ forever (1 Thess. 4:17;
2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23).
3. (a) Jn. presents the Word as being eternal life even before his incarnation. He
has lived eternally with God and for the benefit of men (Jn. 1:4; 1 Jn. 1:1 f.), ie.
he is the source of divine life and power both in the old and in the new creation.
_ In his incarnation he is the revelation of God, but he not only brings eternal life
by his word (Jn. 6:68; 10:28; 12:50; 17:2); he himself is the true life (1 Jn. 5:20),
as his various — “I am” sayings indicate: “I am the bread of life’ (Jn. 6:35, 48),
“the light of the world (Jn. 8:12), ‘‘the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:25), “the
way, the truth and the life” (Jn. 14:6). The pre-existent Son of the eternal Father is
sent into the world to give life to men both by his word and in his own person (Jn.
6:33; 10:10; 1 Jn. 4:9).
(b) The life of God is received by — faith. He who believes in the Son has life
(1 Jn. 5:12), eternal life (Jn. 6:40, 47); he has already passed from death to life
(Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 3:14). The eternal life which is granted to believers expresses itself
in love (Jn. 15:9-17) and in joy (Jn. 16: 20-24). According to 1 Jn. 3:14, brotherly
love is the criterion of true life: ““He who does not love remains in death. We know
that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.”
(c) Although at many points Jn.’s view of life corresponds to that of the gnostics,
he moves in the opposite direction, for whereas the gnostics transferred eternal
life to an almost inaccessible world beyond time and space, Jn. brings it right into
the present and anchors it firmly to the word, the commandment and the person of
Christ (Jn. 17:3). Possessing this eternal life here and now, believers find death
and judgment no longer factors to be reckoned with (Jn. 5:24; 11:25), for such
life has the seeds of eternity within it (Jn. 4:14; 6:27; 12:25). All that remains for
Christ’s disciples is to see the divine glory (thedrdésin tén doxan, Jn. 17:24); and
their salvation will be complete (cf. R. Bultmann, 7DNT II 870 f.).
4. Rev. combines the — Son of man tradition with the figure of a slain — lamb:
“IT am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for
evermore, and | have the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev. 1:17 f.; cf. 1:13 ff;
4:9 f.). Whereas the Gospel of Jn., with its Hellenistic background, concentrates
wholly on the present life, Rev. goes back to Jewish traditions and concerns itself
exclusively with the life to come. In the vision of the new — Jerusalem, the myth-
ical, early oriental pictures of the tree of life and the water of life, familiar from the
story of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:9-17), reappear as symbols of the fulness of
life in the new city of God (Rev. 22:2-14, 19; 21:6; 22:1, 17). The vision of the new
482
LIFE
—> heaven and the new earth is the most wide-ranging in its promises: the last enemy,
death, will be vanquished (cf. Paul, 1 Cor. 15:26) and our eternal life with God
will be utter perfection: “God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every
tear from their eyes and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning
nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away” (Rev.
21:3 f.). H.-G. Link
—> Adam, — Animal, — Birth, — Creation, — Judgment, — Man, — Death,
— Resurrection, — Righteousness, — Sin, + Soul, — Time
(a). K. Barth, CD III 2, “The Creature’; and CD III, 4 ‘‘Freedom for Life’, 324-64; G. R.
Beasley-Murray, ““The Contribution of the Book of Revelation to the Christian Belief in Im-
mortality”, SJT 27, 1974, 76-93; G. Bornkamm, “‘Baptism and New Life in Paul (Romans 6)’’,
Early Christian Experience, 1969, 71-86; S. G. F. Brandon, ‘‘Life after Death IV. The After-Life in
Ancient Egyptian Faith and Practice’, ExpT 76, 1964-65, 217-220; F. F. Bruce, ‘‘Paul on Im-
mortality”, SJT 24, 1971, 457-72; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 203-10,
345-52; Primitive Christianity in its Historical Setting, 1956; The Gospel of John, 1971; J. C.
Coetzee, ‘Life in John’s Writings and the Qumran Scrolls’’, Neotestamentica 6, 1972, 48-66;
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 144-50; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the
Old Testament, II, 1967, 496-529; A. J. Feldman, The Concept of Immortality in Judaism Historic-
ally Considered, 1964; D. H. Gard, ‘‘The Concept of the Future Life according to the Greek
Translator of the Book of Job’, JBL 73, 1954 137-43; D. Hill, ‘‘The Background and Biblical
Usage of zoé and zdé aidnios’’, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of
Soteriological Terms, 1967, 82~—201; L. Hodgson, ‘“‘Life after Death II. The Philosophers: Plato
and Kant’’, ExpT 76, 1964-65, 107 ff.; S. H. Hooke, ‘‘Life after Death V. Israel and the After-
Life’, ExpT 76, 1964-65, 236-39; and ‘“‘Life after Death VI. The Extra-Canonical Literature’,
ibid., 273-76; G. E. I-add, A Theology of the New Testament, 1975, 254—69; W. B. J. Martin, “Life
after Death III. The Poets — Victorian and Modern’, ExpT 76, 1964—65, 140-43; H. Miskotte,
When the Gods are Silent, 1967; C. L. Mitton, ‘‘Life after Death VII. The After-Life in the New
Testament”, ExpT 76, 1964-65, 332-37; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956; J. Pedersen,
Israel: Its Life and Culture, I-I1, 1926, 99-181 (on the soul), 453-96 (on the world of life and death);
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962; II, 1965 (see indexes); Genesis, 1963; and ‘‘ ‘Right-
eousness’ and ‘Life’ in the Cultic Language of the Psalms’’, The Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays, 1966, 243-66; H. H. Rowley, ‘““The Good Life” and ‘‘Death and Beyond”’, The Faith
of Israel, 1956, 124-49, 150-76; G. von Rad, G. Bertram, R. Bultmann, zad etc., TDNT II 832-75;
D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic 200 B.C.—A.D. 100, 1964, 353-90; E.
Schmitt, “Life”, EBT II 499-503; R. Taylor, ‘““The Eschatological Meaning of Life and. Death in
the Book of Wisdom I-V”’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 42, 1966, 72-137; V. Taylor,
“Life after Death I. The Modern Situation’, ExpT 76, 1964-65, 76-79; R. W. Thomas, ‘“‘The
Meaning of the Terms ‘Life’ and ‘Death’ in the Fourth Gospel and in Paul’’, S/T 21, 1968, 199—
212; G. Widengren, “‘Life after Death VIII. Eschatological Ideas in Indian and Iranian Religion’’,
ExpT 76, 1964-65, 364-67; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974.
(b). C. Barth, “Leben und Tod”, EXL II 1040 ff.; G. Dautzenberg, Sein Leben bewahren. Psyche
in den Herrenworten der Evangelien, Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 14, 1966; F. Delekat,
“Tod, Auferstehung, ewiges Leben’’, Ev7Th 21, 1961, 1 ff.; L. Durr, Die Wertung des Lebens im
Alten Testament und antiken Orient, 1926; E. Ebeling, Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der
Babylonier, 1931; G. Gerleman, hadyah, THAT I 549-57; M. L. Henry et al., Leben angesichts des
Todes, Beitrage zum theologischen Problem des Todes. Helmut Thielicke zum 60. Geburtstag, 1968;
A. Hultkranz, ““Leben’’, RGG? IV 248 f.; P. Kleinert, “‘Zur Idee des Lebens im Alten Testament’’,
ThStKr 68, 1895, 693-732; H.-J. Kraus, ‘““Der lebendige Gott’’, EvTh 27, 1967, 169-200; J. Lind-
blom, Das ewige Leben, 1914; O. Michel, ““Der Mensch zwischen Tod und Gericht’”’, Deutsche
Theologie 8, 1941, 10 ff.; F. Mussner, Z6é. Die Anschauung vom ‘‘Leben’’ im vierten Evangelium
unter Beriicksichtigung der Johannesbriefe, 1952; H. Pribnow, Die johanneische Anschauung vom
“‘Leben’’, 1934; O. Procksch, “‘Der Lebensgedanke im Alten Testament’’, Christentum und Wissen-
schaft 4, 1928, 145 ff.; G. Quell, Die Auffassungen des Todes in Israel, 1925; G. von Rad, ‘“‘Alttesta-
mentliche Glaubensaussagen von Leben und Tod’’, Allgemeine evangelisch-lutherische Kirchen-
zeitung 71, 1938, 826 f.; E. Schmitt, Leben in den Weisheitsbiichern Job, Spriiche und Jesus Sirach,
483
LiFE/LIGHT
1954; J. N. Sevenster, Leven en Dood in de Evangelien, 1952; B. Steffen, ““Ewiges Leben’’, EKL
1 1217 ff.; H. Thielicke, Tod und Leben, 1946; T. C. Vriezen, E. Lohse, D. Georgi, H. Conzelmann,
P. Althaus, ‘““Ewiges Leben”, RGG? II 799 ff.; W. Zimmerli, ‘“‘ ‘Leben’ und ‘Tod’ im Buche des
Propheten Ezechiel’’, ThZ 13, 1957, 494-S08.
Light, Shine, Lamp
Light always involves the removal of — darkness, a contrast common to all the
word-groups dealt with in this article. phés denotes brightness, light itself, or that
which radiates light, e.g. a lamp or torch. But since light is essential to all life, light
and —> life are closely linked, as are -> darkness and —> death. phos, therefore, has a
wide range of associations in figurative language, from the light of life and the soul
to salvation or happiness. The vb. /Jamp6 and its compounds describe the function
or effect of the light coming from an object (or, metaphorically, from men, etc.).
phaino is largely synonymous with lampé, but it lays greater stress on the object
itself. It therefore means in cl. Gk. to bring to light; in the pass. to become visible,
appear; and in the mid. (as most often in the NT) phainomai means to let oneself be
seen, to appear as something, to have the appearance of. /ychnos originally meant
the same as /ychnia, i.e. a lampstand for diffusing the beam of the lamp (/ampas)
placed upon it. Later, however, /ychnos came to be used for the lamp itself, and
figuratively for the eye. Like phds, phengos means light, but occurs only three times
in the NT: twice with reference to the light of the moon (Matt. 24:29; Mk. 13:24;
both quoting Isa. 13:10), and once (Lk. 11:33) referring to the light of a lamp.
| ©. °° 4 Adpna@ (lampo), shine; Aaundc (lampas), torch, lamp;
| a | Aaunpdc (lampros), beaming, bright, shining, radiant,
gleaming, beautiful; Aaqumpdotys (lamproteés), brilliance, splendour, large-hearted-
ness; Aan pac (lampro6s), brilliantly, splendidly, sumptuously ; éxAdumw (eklampo),
shine forth; zepiAdunq (perilampo), surround with light.
CL 1. lampo, found since Homer, especially in Gk. poetry, is generally intrans.
and means to shine (rarely trans., to illuminate). In its lit. sense it refers to
sources of light such as the sun, lightning, a torch or a lamp, but it is frequently
used fig. in reference to men, e.g. eyes flashing with anger, shining faces, radiant
beauty. The compound perilampo is used trans. in the sense of to surround with
light, while eklampo (since Aeschylus) is intrans. and means to shine forth, e.g.
of the sun. The noun /ampas (since Aeschylus) means a torch (made of resinous
pine-wood) or a lamp (i.e. an oil-vessel with a wick). lJamprotés, on the other hand,
is abstract, meaning brilliance, or fig. large-heartedness, and is found from Herodo-
tus onwards. Finally, the adj. Jampros (since Homer) means beaming, gleaming,
shining white (cf. leukos, white, gleaming), and the adv. /ampros (since Aeschylus)
means brilliantly, splendidly, sumptuously.
2. While in its primary sense /Jampo describes the function of light (— phds), in
illuminating — darkness (skotos), used metaphorically it can refer to a shining
hero striking fear into men’s hearts (e.g. Homer, J/. 20, 46). Justice and certain
virtues are also said to shine forth.
The flaming torch is associated with the Eleusinian deities and with Artemis and
484
LIGHT
Hecate, i.e. it is a symbol of purification and serves to drive away demonic powers.
A further connection with deity is seen when, e.g., a grove is said to light up at the
appearance of a god (cf. Hesiod, Scutum Herculis 71). Such passages, however, are
rare, for on the whole the Gk. concept “does not specifically associate that which
shines with the divine” (A. Oepke, TDNT IV 18). Only later, under Egyptian and
particularly under oriental influence, does a “religion of light’’ properly so-called,
arise within the Hel. world, reaching its full development in gnosticism (— phos).
oT In the LXX lampo and eklampo stand for the Heb. equivalents sahah (to shine),
zahar (hiph. trans. to illumine, to teach; intrans. to shine) and nagah (to shine,
to light; hiph. to cause to shine).
([T. McComiskey] In the LXX Jampas represents the Heb. lappid which means
torch and is so used in Gen. 15:17; Jdg. 7:16, 20; 15:4, 5. It was used frequently in
the OT to describe something of brilliant or dazzling appearance. In Ezek. 1:13
the word describes the undulating light in the midst of the four creatures [cf. Dan.
10:6]. In Nahum 2:4[5] the word describes the gleaming of chariots and in Job
41:10[11] the exhalations of Leviathan. In Isa. 62:1 the word describes the visible
manifestation of Israel’s deliverance among the nations. And in Zech. 12:6 the
clans of Judah are likened to a flaming torch that ignites sheaves. The word /ampas
also represents the Aramaic nebrasta [lampstand] in Dan. 5:5. In the LXX
lamprotés stands for the Heb. nd‘am in Psa. 90[89]:17. The word nd‘am means
pleasantness or favour with no intrinsic concept of brightness.)
These words are important theologically since, in certain contexts, they indicate
that God manifests himself as light and hence as a source of illumination, though
Yahweh himself is rarely found as the subject of one of these vbs. (see 2 Sam. 22:29:
“my God lightens my darkness’’; cf. Ps. 18:28, where, however, the vb. is photizein).
As a rule his kabéd, the radiance of his glory (— Glory, art. doxa) is represented in
terms of man-made or natural luminaries.
Thus flaming torches (Jampades pyros) indicate the presence of God (Gen. 15:17;
Ezek. 1:13); cf. Exod. 19:18; 24:17, where Yahweh is associated with the smoke
and —> fire on Mount Sinai, and similarly in the Sinai narrative his presence as
lawgiver is made known by flashes of lightning (Exod. 20:18). In Zech. 4:1 ff. there
is the vision of the seven-branched candlestick with lamps symbolizing the eyes of
the Lord which survey the whole earth. Presumably “‘the ever-burning lamp in the
temple is a representation of the kabéd” (S. Aalen, Die Begriffe ‘Licht’? und
‘“Finsternis’” im Alten Testament, im Spdtjudentum und im Rabbinismus, 1951, 75).
Certainly the seven-branched lampstand (Exod. 25:31 ff.) is “‘a symbol of life and
light”’ just as the lamp is “‘a symbol of happiness and prosperity”’ (cf. Jer. 25:10;
Prov. 31:18; 13:9; Job 29:3), and therefore, to the godly man, they point back to
God as the “‘Lord and source of all these blessings” (S. Aalen, op. cit., 66). Even
Job 41:10 ff: fits this context of ideas, for Leviathan pictured as a crocodile spitting
out sparks of fire (v. 19) is an impressive illustration of the power and greatness
of the Creator.
Hence in the OT lightning, flaming torches and lamps frequently indicate a
theophany or otherwise draw attention to the glory of Yahweh. Furthermore,
there is often a close connection between flaming torches and divine — judgment
(cf. Num. 16:35), an association vividly portrayed in Zech. 12:6, where the princes
485
LIGHT
of Israel, as instruments of divine justice, are likened to flaming torches ready to
consume Israel’s enemies (cf. Nah. 2:4). Occasionally the radiance of the divine
glory can also be reflected by men acting on behalf of Yahweh. There is no sugges-
tion anywhere, however, of ‘“‘a passing of the divine substance of light into man”
(A. Oepke, TDNT IV 22). Nevertheless, the future of the — covenant people is
radiant with light and life (cf. Ps. 36:9; Dan. 12:3 Theodotion’s Gk. text), while
that of the godless is dark (Prov. 4:18, 19). These latter ideas in particular are
developed in late Judaism (2 Esd. 7:97; Eth.Enoch 51:5; cf. A. Oepke, TDNT IV
23 f.).
NT In the NT Jampé occurs 7 times, perilamp6 twice, eklampé once, lampas and
lampros 9 times each, and /amprotés and lampros once each. Out of 30 occur-
rences in all, 9 are in Matt., and 7 in Rev.
1. The words are used in their lit. sense to denote the shining of the sun (Acts
26:13; cf. 2 Cor. 4:6, where as in the OT stress is laid on the creative act of God in
causing light to break forth); similarly of lightning (Lk. 17:24; cf. Rev. 8:10) and
of a light upon a lampstand (Matt. 5:15 f. par. Lk. 11:33 f.).
Equally lit. is the use of Jampades (plur. of lampas) both for torches (Jn. 18:3 in
the account of Jesus’ arrest; cf. Rev. 4:5; 8:10) and for (oil-) lamps (Matt. 25:1,
3f., 7f.; Acts 20:8).
2. The adj. Jampros can denote the magnificance of a garment, indicating afflu-
ence or luxury (Jas. 2:2f.; cf. Lk. 23:11; Rev. 19:8). Used without immediate
reference to clothing, it pictures the faded splendour of the “‘harlot of Babylon’’
(Rev. 18:14), or, adverbially, the luxurious living of the rich man in Lk. 16:19. In
these passages the words begin to have metaphorical significance, for true splendour
comes only from heaven. Thus Paul, on his way to Damascus, is suddenly sur-
rounded by a light “brighter than the sun’’ (Acts 26:13: ouranothen hyper tén
lamprotéta tou héliou perilampsan me phos), and similarly, in Lk. 2:9, the shepherds
are surrounded with the radiance of the — angels, who, in the NT generally, appear
as shining figures in a blaze of light (Acts 10:30; 12:7; Rev. 15:6; cf. Matt. 28:2 f.;
Rev. 18:1).
3. But supremely it was > Jesus Christ himself who was so “‘transfigured”’ by
divine radiance that his face shone (e/ampsen) like the sun and his garments became
white as light (Matt. 17:2; cf. Mk. 9:2 f.; Lk. 9:29). In John’s vision of the future
he appears as the bright morning star (Rev. 22:16). This and related word-groups
are particularly important in John’s vision (— lychnos; — phos); cf. the reference
to the river of the water of life, ‘“‘bright as crystal’, flowing from the throne of God
(Rev. 22:1). As the lightning illuminates the whole sky, so (according to Lk. 17:24)
will it be at Christ’s parousia. ‘“Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the
kingdom of their Father’ (Matt. 13:43, quoting Dan. 12:3).
Until that time Christ’s disciples have the task of shining like lights on a lamp-
stand (Matt. 5:15 f. + lychnos; cf. Rev. 1:12, 20; 2:1), which is made possible
only by sharing with Paul in the experience of 2 Cor. 4:6. H.-C. Hahn
7 Abyvoc (lychnos), lamp, light; Avyvia (lychnia), candle-
| Aigvos | stick, lampstand.
486
LIGHT
CL & oT Already in Homer /ychnos (root leuk; cf. Latin lux, light) means light,
lamp (cf. Homer, Od. 19, 34). At a later period this was almost invariably some
form of oil-lamp (/ampas). The latter was often placed upon a lampstand or candle-
stick (lychnia, since Plutarch) in order to diffuse the beam.
In the Gk. world and among the Israelites, lamp and lampstand were important
both as everyday objects (cf. 2 Ki. 4:10), and for the part they played in public
worship (cf. especially the seven-branched candlestick in the tabernacle and the
temple, e.g. Exod. 25:13 ff.; Heb. 9:2).
NT In the NT lychnos occurs 14 times (of which 6 are in the writings of Lk. and 3
in Reyv.), and /ychnia 11 times (of which 7 are in Rev.). The importance of
lights and lamps (e.g. for the household, Lk. 15:8) explains why Jesus used them to
illustrate his disciples’ function in the world: as the lamp on the candlestick lights
up the surrounding darkness, so the disciples are to have an illuminating effect
upon their environment (Matt. 5:15 ff.; Mk. 4:21; Lk. 8:16; 11:33). The eye is
called “‘the light [/ychnos] of the body” (Matt. 6:22; Lk. 11:33). “On its health
depends whether the blessings of light come to man”? (W. Michaelis, TDNT IV
326). The ensuing reference to the eye being haplous, single or sound, is taken by
D. Hill to reflect the Heb. tam (Aram. S*/im) meaning singleness of purpose,
undivided loyalty (The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 142). Hill endorses the gloss of
F. V. Filson: “‘ If a man divides his interest and tries to focus on both God and
possessions, he has no clear vision, and will live without clear orientation and
direction” (A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1960, 100).
While Jesus described himself as light (—~ phos), his forerunner John the Baptist
is likened to a burning and shining lamp (ho lychnos ho kaiomenos kai phainon, Jn.
5:35). Similarly, two witnesses are compared to two lampstands (Rev. 11:4, cf.
Zech. 4:3, 11-14), and the seven churches are symbolized by seven golden lamp-
stands (Rev. 1:12 f., 20; 2:1). The source of the witnesses’ and the churches’ light is
indicated by 2 Pet. 1:19, where the word of prophecy is called “light” in that it
looks forward to the glory of Christ. It is clear from Rev. 2:5 that the light of
Christian witness can become dull and even go out, and that it can be renewed
only by repentance (cf. Heb. 6:4 ff., concerning the apostasy of those who have
been enlightened).
Babylon is warned that when she sinks in ruin, ““The light of the lamp shall
shine in thee no more”’ (Rev. 18:23; — Babylon). The heavenly — Jerusalem, on
the other hand, will be illuminated by the glory of God (Rev. 21:23), which makes
all lamps superfluous (Rev. 22:5) for God himself will be the sole light. Until that
day, the Christian may be said to live in eschatological tension; he is therefore
called to be watchful, as in the vivid metaphors of Lk. 12:35: ‘Let your loins be
girded and your lamps burning”’. H.-C. Hahn
; daive (phaind), shine; Paivopai (phainomai), mid. shine,
| paiv@ |
_ soappear, become manifest, come into view.
CL & OT Both active and passive forms are found from Homer onwards. The
active phaino (intrans. only) means to shine (e.g. of the sun, the moon, or a
lamp); similarly the passive phainomai, which, however, more frequently means to
487
LIGHT
appear, come into view. In the LXX the mid. occurs almost exclusively, but without
any clear Heb. equivalent; usually it translates ’6r (hiph.), to let shine and ra’Gh
(niph.), to be seen, appear.
NT 1. In the NT phainé occurs 9 times, of which 7 are in the Johannine writings.
It generally refers to the light of natural luminaries such as celestial bodies
(Phil. 2:15), the sun (Rev. 1:16; 21:23; cf. 8:12) and the moon (Rev. 21:23)
(— Sun, Moon, Stars), but may also refer to the light of a lamp (— lychnos) (Jn.
5:35; 2 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 18:23). In all these passages, however, the light concerned
is contrasted with a stronger source of light, e.g. the sun and the moon will be super-
fluous when the glory of God illumines the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:23). Only
in two places does phaino refer to the “‘true”’ light itself, i.e. Christ (Jn. 1:5; 1 Jn.
2:8).
2. phainomai which occurs 22 times in the NT, of which 17 are in the Synoptic
Gospels, is used for the appearing of a star (Matt. 2:7), and also for the appearing
of tares among the wheat (Matt. 13:26). It occurs similarly in the birth narratives
where — angels appear in — dreams (Matt. 1:20; 21:3, 19), and in other narra-
tives such as those of — Elijah’s rumoured appearance (Lk. 9:8) and the appear-
ances of the risen Christ (Mk. 16:9). Similarly, the appearance of certain pheno-
mena will accompany his return (Matt. 24:27, 30). The idea of becoming visible
is present in Matt. 9:33 (of Christ’s deeds); Jas. 4:14 (of a mist, to which man’s
brief life is compared); and 1 Pet. 4:18 (of the ungodly at the last — judgment).
Matt. 6:5, 16, 18 and 23:27 f. take what men are or do in secret, and contrast this,
either positively or negatively, with outward appearances. Paul tells the Corin-
thians that his primary concern is their well-being, not his own good “showing”’
before God (2 Cor. 13:7). Mk. 14:64 and Lk. 24:11 refer to the way something
‘“‘appears”’ to a person (similarly Rom. 7:13: the true nature of sin being revealed
to a person through the law).
Heb. 11:3 is theologically significant. Here the prime cause of “‘things which
are seen” (blepomena; — See) is said to be God’s creative word. In this way the
doctrine of ex nihilo — creation is safeguarded against the error of materialism,
which would teach that the ‘“‘aeons’’ have evolved spontaneously from ‘“‘things
which appear” (phainomena). (— Faith, art. pistis; — Form art. hypostasis.)
H.-C. Hahn
| EhaviCa@ (emphanizo), reveal, make known; éudavyc
| eudavito (emphaneés), visible.
CL In secular Gk. emphanizo is used basically in the sense of to manifest, exhibit,
and passively to become visible. The word also connotes the ideas of making
plain (Plato, Sophocles), declaring or explaining (Aristotle). The adj. emphanés
connotes the idea of visible, open, manifest.
oT In the LXX emphanizo stands once for the Heb. ’a@mar (Est. 2:22). The vb.
"amar means to say or tell. Thus, in this context emphanizo is used in the sense
of declare. The word also stands for the hiphil of yada‘ (know) in Exod. 33:13,
where — Moses prays that he may “‘have made known’’ to him the ways of God.
488
LIGHT
The sense here is that of making known or revealing the ways of God. In Isa. 3:9
emphanizo occurs as the translation of the negative clause /6’ kihédii (“they do not
hide it’). The context indicates that it is their sin that they fail to hide; the LXX
presents the act positively, i.e. they “manifest” or “display” their sin. In Exod.
33:18 emphanizo represents the Heb. ra’ah (hiph.). The Heb. ra’ah is the common
word for see, and in the hiphil means to show or exhibit.
emphanes (neut.) represents the niphal of the Heb. kin (establish) in Isa. 2:2
and Mic. 4:1 which describes the exalted position of the mountain of the —
house of the Lord over the mountains. emphanes here is probably used in the sense
of conspicuous or manifest. This connotation is not inherent in the Heb. kin which
is used only in the sense of to be firm, establish (cf. Ass. kanu, be firm). The LXX
seems to be expansive in its translation at this point.
In Isa. 65:1 emphanés represents the niphal of the Heb. daras (seek). In this
context the Lord indicates that he was sought by those who did not ask for him.
The LXX understands daras in the sense of to manifest, perhaps understanding the
niphal in its reflexive sense, i.e. “I permitted myself to be known,” hence “I
manifested myself.”’
In Exod. 2:14 emphanés stands for the niphal of yada‘ (know). In this context
Moses becomes aware of the fact that his murder of the Egyptian has become
known.
NT In the NT the vb. emphanizo occurs in the sense of declare, inform on 5 occa-
sions. In Acts 23:15 the word occurs with the dative to chiliarcho, the military
tribune, the commander of a cohort in charge of Paul (cf. Arndt, 890). In Acts 24:1
the word is used in conjunction with the clause kata tou Paulou in a legal context
referring to the act of informing against or presenting a case against Paul. The
word is used in a similar sense in Acts 25:2, 15 with peri as the preposition in v. 15.
In Acts 23:22 the word is used of the act of imparting information. It describes the
act of a young informant who disclosed information to the tribune mentioned
above.
In Heb. 11:14 the word emphanizo is used in the sense of show or manifest.
Those who acknowledge their transience on the earth show or demonstrate by this
acknowledgment the fact that they are seeking a homeland.
emphanizo occurs several times in the sense of appear. In Matt. 27:53 it is used
of the saints who appeared in Jerusalem at the — resurrection of Christ. In Jn.
14:21 f. it is used of the spiritual presence of Christ with the one who keeps
Christ’s — commandments. It thus connotes here a manifestation to the spiritual
faculties rather than to the senses. In Heb. 9:24 the verb is used of Christ’s appear-
ance in the presence of God.
The adj. emphanés is used in the NT on two occasions. In Acts 10:40 it occurs in
the sense of manifest in the phrase eddken auton emphané genesthai, ‘““‘made him
manifest’ (RSV). The context refers to the post-resurrection appearance of Christ
to certain witnesses.
In Rom. 10:20 the word occurs in a quotation from Isa. 65:1: “I have been
found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself [emphanés egenomén] to
those who did not ask for me.”’ As in the LXX rendering of this verse noted above,
emphanes represents the niphal of dara¥. The quotation, like the preceding one
489
LIGHT
from Deut. 32:21, illustrates the fulfilment of OT prophecy and the consistency of
God in receiving the Gentiles, whereas — Israel, as ever, has remained disobedient,
(Rom. 10:21; cf. Isa. 65:2). T. McComiskey
[bac PAG (phos), light, brilliance, brightness ; dwtil@ (pho-
tizo), light up, illumine, bring to light; dwtiopdc
(phétismos), illumination, enlightenment; da@tevdc¢ (photeinos), shining, bright,
radiant; dwotyp (phostér), luminary, brightness; da@addpoc (phosphoros),
bearing light, morning star.
cL 1. In Homer there is frequent use of the noun to phaos, later abbreviated, e.g.
by the tragedians, to its Att. form phos. Its basic meaning of light, brightness,
also covers the following nuances among others: sunlight, daylight, torch, fire
(-light), eyesight. Figuratively phds means the light of life, i.e. life itself, which is
highly valued as something bright, and as being comparable with salvation,
happiness or military triumph. The bringer of such salvation can also be referred
to as phos. |
The vb. photizo (since Aristotle), formed from the same stem, is almost always
trans., meaning to light up, illumine, bring to light, make visible. Its corresponding
noun phdtismos denotes brilliance, radiance, or bringing to light, making manifest,
revelation. There is also the adj. phdteinos (since Xenophon), shining, bright.
A further derivative from phds is phéstér (since Heliodorus), luminary or bright-
ness, and from Euripides onwards the morning star is termed phdsphoros.
2. Relatively early in Gk. usage phos (in contrast with skotos, — darkness, or
nyx, night) came to mean the sphere of ethical good, whereas misdeeds are said to
take place in darkness. Hence it is the task, e.g., of a judge, to bring hidden things
“to light’’.
Plato’s comparison of the idea of the good with sunlight (Rep. 507e—-509b) is
deeply significant for the history of ideas. By entering the sphere of epistemology
(— knowledge), phds became greatly enriched in its range of connotation. A
context such as this can stress its illuminating qualities, while another can em-
phasize its function as a healer, for even in the Gk. world there was a connection
between “‘the notion of sin and the image of darkness, and the notion of a redemp-
tion and salvation from evil and the image of the light’’ (J. Stenzel, Die Antike, I,
1925, 256; cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 42). Light possesses powers
essential to true life. Hence “‘to be in the light’? comes to mean simply “‘to live’,
whereas to be in Hades (—> Hell) is to be in darkness.
3. In the Gk. as in other religions the metaphor of light has a certain importance.
The gods are said to live in a world of brightness, the world from which Prometheus
stole — fire. “‘He kindled the light of fire for mortal men” (K. Kerenyi, Prometheus,
72). Torch-races were held as part of the cultic veneration of the gods, and in
certain mystery cults the cleansing and refining effect of fire (like that of water)
played no small part. But Gk. religion never became a religion of light in the strict
sense of the term (cf. A. Oepke, TDNT IV 19). Such a religion came into being
only in later Hellenism.
Gnosticism (~ Knowledge, art. gindsko) marked the climax of this process. It
490
LIGHT
saw a basic, essential difference between light and darkness which stood over
against each other as hostile powers, each being sovereign within its own sphere.
Man, who by nature is in darkness, needs to liberate the elements of light within
his own soul, and free them from earthly matter so that they may be re-united with
the supernatural world to which they really belong and so attain to true life. Light
and —> life are inseparably connected; similarly, ‘in gnosticism light and spirit
are considered to be essentially one’”’ (H. Leisegang, Die Gnosis, 19554, 27). “Light
is the matter of the other world which flows on him who is willing to receive it
and imports divine powers. Light, life, and later knowledge are interchangeable
concepts” (A. Oepke, TDNT 20 IV). This gnostic religion of light was carried still
further in Manichaeism and Mandaeism.
oT 1. In the OT there are frequent references to light and its effects. Having quoted
B. Jacob and A. Dillmann, who respectively describe light as “the sublimest
element”? and “‘the finest of all elementary forces’, G. von Rad adds his own
epithet: “the first-born of creation” (Genesis, 19637, 49; cf. Gen. 1:3 ff.). He points
out that this primeval light has pride of place over all other lights: even the stars
are “in no way creators of light, but only mediating bearers of a light that was
there without them and before them” (op. cit., 54). The sun, being the brightest
star, is assigned to the day (Gen. 1:14 ff.; Sir. 43:2 ff.), and each new day begins
with the ushering in of morning light (2 Sam. 23:4). The moon and stars seek to
penetrate the darkness of the night at least to some degree (Gen. 1:16; Sir. 43:6 ff.).
Surrounded as they were by “‘a cultural and religious atmosphere that was saturated
with all kinds of astrological false belief’ (von Rad, ibid.; cf. Wisd. 13:1 f.), the
Israelites laid great stress on light having been created, in order to render abortive
any attempt to deify it. There is only the one God Yahweh. He creates light and
darkness (Gen. 1:3 ff.; Isa. 45:7; Jer. 31:35; Sir. 43:1 ff.), and since he is — Lord
also of the darkness, he is able to turn even darkness into light (Ps. 139:11 f.).
(a) In the OT there are frequent references to light as a kind of attribute of God:
light is his garment (Ps. 104:2). His nearness and presence are indicated by light
(cf. Exod. 13:21 f.; Neh. 9:12; Dan. 2:22, “the light dwells with him’’; Hab. 3:4,
“his brightness was like the light’; Isa. 60:19 f. in an eschatological context). In
particular his countenance is said to be the origin of the light proceeding from him
(Ps. 4:6; 44:3; 89:15). S. Aalen comments: “It is probably true to say that through-
out the OT light is a feature of God’s self-manifestation rather than of his heavenly
being” (RGG? IV 358).
For man the light of Yahweh means salvation, an idea clearly expressed in Ps.
27:1: ““The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?” (cf. Job 22:28).
The light which comes from God sets the bounds of every man’s life, and arises
upon all men (cf. Job 25:3; Sir. 42:16). Each man, however, must still turn to the
light; in fact, he must look beyond it to its source, and consciously acknowledge
the might of the Creator.
The light of the ungodly is worthless. It goes out (Job 18:5 f.), or is taken from
them (Job 38:15). They grope in darkness (cf. Job 12:25; Prov. 4:19), and even
after death darkness will still surround them (Ps. 49:19), while God will redeem the
soul of the righteous “from the power of Sheol’’ (Ps. 49:15; — Hell).
(b) Even during his earthly life, however, the godly man enjoys the light of the
491
LIGHT
living (Ps. 112:4, “Light rises in the darkness for the upright”; cf. Job 33:30; Ps.
56:13; Prov. 4:18; 13:9). He enters into an experience of God’s saving power when
he opens his heart to the light of God’s word (Ps. 119:105; cf. Prov. 6:23 and Wis.
7:10, 26, where the — law and — wisdom respectively are referred to as light).
Only in the light of God does man see light (Ps. 36:9). Only when enlightened by
God does the nature of reality dawn upon him, and that not by any mystical
illumination. Rather, having turned to God, he receives, along with the gift of
salvation, practical ‘“‘orientation for his life’ (cf. S. Aalen, Die Begriffe “Licht” und
‘‘Finsternis” im Alten Testament, in Spdtjudentum und im Rabbinismus, 1951, 65).
His life must be lived in the light, i.e. in concrete obedience to God’s — com-
mandments. Just as the “‘pillar of fire’? marked Israel’s route at the time of their
exodus from Egypt (Exod. 13:21 f.), so the law shows how a man is to walk in the
light, i.e. how a godly Israelite ought to live (cf. the exhortation of Isa. 2:5). The
prophets in particular lay great stress on the importance of walking in holiness and
righteousness. He who walks in the light himself can also become a light for others,
i.e. a mediator of the covenant on behalf of all mankind (said of the Servant of
the Lord, Isa. 42:6; 49:6; cf. 58:10, acts of mercy are like beams of light). This
missionary outlook is marked by a world-wide hope, even in the OT, for the truth
of Yahweh will go forth as “‘a light to the nations” (Isa. 51:4), and they will flock
to the light of God (Isa. 60:3).
2. An antithesis found particularly in the OT Wisdom Literature, that of light
and darkness as the respective spheres of the God-fearing and the ungodly (e.g.
Prov. 4:18 f.), receives radical treatment in the Qumran texts. Within the religious
community on the North-West shores of the Dead Sea there developed a dualism
of light and darkness, probably under the influence of the Persian religion of light.
On earth the “‘sons of the light’ — in this case identified with the members of the
Qumran community — are locked in conflict with the “‘sons of darkness” (1QS
1:9, 18, 24; 2:5, 16, 19; 3:13 and often; cf. the title of 1QM, ‘“War of the Sons of
of Light against the Sons of Darkness’’; on this see the edition of Y. Yadin,
The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, 1962).
This confrontation within history corresponds to a similar one in the meta-
physical world of spirits. The Prince of Light (1QS 3:20; CD 5:18; 1QM 13:10) is
opposed as lord of the world by an Angel of Darkness (1QS 3:20, 21). But there is a
causal, indeed almost a predestinarian link between the respective sides in this
conflict and the two opposing camps into which mankind is divided: “Those born
of the truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of falsehood spring
from a source of darkness. All the children of righteousness are ruled by the
Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light; but all the children of falsehood are
ruled by the Angel of Darkness and walk in the ways of darkness” (1QS 3:19 ff.;
cf. Vermes, Scrolls, 76). Nevertheless, the sons of light are still subject to attacks
from the Angel of Darkness and his spirits (ibid.) and their situation would be
desperate apart from the help of the ‘“‘God of Israel’’. He represents the limit of the
power of darkness, for in Qumran, just as in the OT, he is regarded as the creator
both of the spirits of light and also of those of darkness (1QS 3:26). Dualism
extends, therefore, into the transcendent realm of spirits, but it is not carried further
to include God himself. Darkness is not his equal, as it is in Mazdaism, for he
remains ultimately the Lord and as such the guarantor that the eschatological
492
LIGHT
hopes of the sons of light will be realized. The latter, of course, must live as those
who have been enlightened (cf. 1QS 11:5), continually walking in the ways of
light, i.e. in conformity to the Torah and to the rules of their order (cf. 1QS 1:16-
2:18; 3:3). Then their way will be bathed in the light of glory yet to come, while
all that awaits the ungodly is darkness (cf. 1QS 2:7 f.; 4:6 ff., 12 f., and often; for
the antithesis of the way of light and the way of darkness see 1QS 3:20f.; cf.
Sl.Enoch 30:15 A). The dualism between light and darkness is conceived of not
so much in material terms as in gnosticism, but rather in ethico-historical terms.
3. Philo used phos particularly with reference to questions of + knowledge.
Hence sophia, — wisdom, and epistémé, knowledge, are called phos dianoias, the
light of knowledge (Spec.Leg. 1, 288; Migr.Abr. 39 f.), i.e. they cast true light upon
the whole question of existence. Under Plato’s influence, Philo saw the noetic as
playing an important part in a man’s appropriation of salvation. But since, like
others in the history of religion, he viewed salvation in terms of light, it is easy to
see why he used the metaphor of light for epistemological concepts.
The Jogos is light (Leg.All. 3, 171 ff.; + Word), similarly the human nous or
understanding (Post.C. 57f.;—> Reason). By describing — conscience as phos
(Deus Imm. 135; Jos. 68), he indicates the connection between knowledge and
ethical behaviour, a connection already assumed as self-evident by Plato. Pride
of place among the virtues, however, is held not by the philosophical concept of
eros (— Love), but by piety and love towards God. He is the one and only God,
dwelling, according to Philo, in a heaven of brightness and light (Jos. 145). But
God himself is regarded as ‘“‘the first light’, and “‘the archetype of every other
light”’ (Som. 1, 75) — yet another indication of Philo’s attempt to combine Hellen-
istic philosophy with the faith of Israel.
NT In the NT phos occurs 72 times, of which 33 are in the Johannine writings, 14 in
the Synoptic Gospels, 13 in Paul and 10 in Acts; photizd occurs 11 times;
photismos twice (2 Cor. 4:4, 6); phdteinos 4 times; phdstér twice (Phil. 2:15; Rev.
21:11); and phdésphoros only once (2 Pet. 1:19).
1. (a) The original, literal meaning is found in reference to the light of the sun
(Rev. 22:5), which is absent at night (Jn. 11:10), the light of lamps (Lk. 8:16;
11:33; 15:8; Acts 16:29; Rev. 18:23; 22:5) and the warm glow of a fire (Mk.
14:54; Lk. 22:56).
(b) The bright cloud used by God in the transfiguration of his Son (Matt. 17:5)
points beyond itself to God, whose appearing is inevitably accompanied by efful-
gence. The Son, too, is surrounded by radiance: “‘His face shone like the sun, and
his garments became white as light’? (Matt. 17:2). Here light is a manifestation of
the presence of God; in some other places it indicates the appearing of the exalted
Christ (Acts 9:3; 22:6, 9, 11; 26:13), and in yet others the coming of angels as
messengers from God himself (Acts 12:7; cf. Matt. 28:2 f.).
The disciples are also described as light or light-bearers (Matt. 5:14, 16; Lk.
12:35; cf. Eph. 5:8; Phil. 2:15), since it is their task to pass on the divine light
which they have received. That which they heard from Jesus in secret (i.e. in the
intimacy of his closed circle of friends) they are to proclaim fearlessly ‘in the light’’
(a stock phrase meaning “‘in public’) (Matt. 10:27; cf. Lk. 12:3). As missionaries
of Christ, they are to shine out into the world, not with their own light but with the
493
LIGHT
very light of heaven itself, for in the NT light is associated with God’s dwelling-
place (1 Tim. 6:16), or even with God himself (1 Jn. 1:5), whence it streams forth
into this world.
2. It is John in particular who portrays Jesus Christ as light breaking in upon
the — darkness of the world (— Earth, art. kosmos). Already in the prologue to
his Gospel, light and life are linked together, i.e. Christ is the only remedy for men
who by nature are in darkness (Jn. 1:4; cf. 8:12). John the Baptist is called a witness
to the light, though the difference between him and the light itself is made very
clear (Jn. 1:6 ff.; 5:35 f.). ““The true light that enlightens every man” came into
the world in the person of Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:9). R. Bultmann comments: “He is
the proper, authentic light, who alone can fulfil the claim to give existence the
proper understanding of itself....The exclusiveness of the revelation which
occurred in Jesus is further brought out by the relative clause ho photizei: he and
only he is the Revealer for all men” (The Gospel of John, 1971, 53; cf. Jn. 3:19; Lk.
2:32, quoting Isa. 42:6; 49:6). The same note of exclusiveness is sounded very
clearly in one of Christ’s celebrated — “‘I am’’ sayings, where he also indicates the
consequences for men: “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not
walk in darkness, but will have the light of life’? (In. 8:12; cf. 9:5; 12:46; — See).
“The light’ designates the nature of Jesus directly. He is not like a light; he is
‘the light’? (H. Conzelmann, An Outline Theology of the New Testament, 1969,
351). R. Bultmann expounds the significance of this light as follows: ““By making
the world bright, it makes it possible for men to see. But sight is not only significant
in that it enables man to orientate himself in respect to objects; sight is at the same
time the means whereby man understands himself in his world, the reason he does
not ‘grope in the dark’, but sees his ‘way’ ”’ (op. cit., 40). Recognizing the way is
not sufficient, however. We have to — walk in it, for he who is the light and the
way does not want mere admirers, but believing followers. Hence the injunction:
“Believe in the light, that you may become sons of light’”’ (Jn. 12:36).
An admonition such as this is necessary because the natural man loves darkness
rather than light (Jn. 3:19). This may be compared with 2 Cor. 4:4, where Paul
speaks of men blinded by the god of this world “to keep them from seeing the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the likeness of God’’. This can only
be changed by a creative act of God parallel to the original creation of light. “‘For
it is God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to
give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ’ (2 Cor.
4:6; cf. Gen. 1:3). And even though it is certainly true that since the coming of
Jesus Christ “darkness is passing away” (1 Jn. 2:8), the Christian coming to the
light still needs to be urged to keep the commandment of brotherly love (1 Jn.
2:8 ff.). For only “he who loves his brother abides in the light” (1 Jn. 2:10). The pre-
requisite for doing the — truth —here as elsewhere closely associated with the
idea of light —is communion with him who is the light of the world, Jesus Christ.
In order to abide in him, the Christian must walk in the light, live for his brethren
and constantly seek forgiveness through the power of the — blood of Christ (1 Jn.
1:6f.).
3. Although using these words less frequently than John, Paul gives them a
similar theological content. Light and darkness are as incompatible as — righteous-
ness and lawlessness (— sin; cf. 2 Cor. 6:14), ideas influenced possibly by Qumran.
494
LIGHT
The content of light or illumination, however, can only be christological: God has
shone in our hearts “‘to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Christ’? (2 Cor. 4:4, 6 [see above 2]; cf. 2 Tim. 1:10). Through him we
share ‘‘in the inheritance of the saints in light”’ (Col. 1:12). |
In turn those who once were darkness have become, as believers, “‘children of
light’, and are now “‘light in the Lord’’ (Eph. 5:8; cf. 1 Thess. 5:5; Lk. 16:8).
Such sonship, however, makes ethical demands upon its recipients: “The fruit of
light is found in all that is good and right and true” (Eph. 5:9). Thus it is necessary
to walk according to the light, and all the more so since Christians bear a mission-
ary responsibility for the world about them, a responsibility which they can only
meet by living “as lights in a dark world”’ (Phil. 2:15; cf. Acts 13:47, quoting Isa.
49:6), even though this may perhaps involve them in conflict (Heb. 10:32).
In this world the Christian lives his life, so to speak, between God and — Satan.
The latter can even disguise himself as ‘‘an angel of light’? (2 Cor. 11:14). Hence
Christians must put on “the armour of light’? (Rom. 13:12; + Weapon). Only he
who has fought a good fight in this armour has no need to fear the day when “‘the
Father of lights’? (Jas. 1:17) will bring to light what is hidden (1 Cor. 4:5).
H.-C. Hahn
4. Like the OT and late Judaism, the NT describes the future of the ungodly
in terms of eschatological — darkness which symbolizes perdition. Believers, on
the other hand, have a > hope which enables them to see the end of time differ-
ently. This too can be depicted in terms of light. In the new — Jerusalem there will
no longer be sun, moon or created light, ‘‘for the glory of God is its light [lit.
illuminated it, ephdtisen autén] and its lamp [lychnos] is the Lamb. By its light shall
the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory to it” (Rev.
21:23 f.; cf. 22:5 which adds that there will be no more night). While the ungodly
are excluded (Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:3, 11, 18 f.), there is an echo here of the universal
coming to the light by the Gentiles alongside Israel which featured in the eschato-
logical proclamation of Isa. 2:2—5; 24:23; 60:1, 19. Here too the light of Yahweh
supersedes created light.
2 Pet. 1:19 contains the admonition: “You would do well to pay attention to this
as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star [phds-
phoros] rises in your hearts.” There are no lexical grounds for interpreting phos-
Phoros (lit. light-bringer) of the — sun. The term was used in cl. Gk. of the morning
star, the planet Venus (Liddell-Scott, 1968), which precedes the dawn. For stars as
messianic symbols see Num. 24:17: ““There shall come a star out of Jacob’’ (which
was applied to Bar Kokhba whose name means “Son of a Star’’; — Jesus Christ,
art. Christos; — Israel; cf. also Test.Lev. 18:3; Test.Jud. 24:1-5; 1QM 11:6f.;
Lk. 1:78; Rev. 22:16). The term hedsphoros, bringer of morn, morning star, is
likewise attested in cl. Gk. (Liddell-Scott, 752). It occurs in the LXX in a lit. sense
in 1 Sam. (K1.) 30:17; Job 3:9; 11:17; 38:12; 41:9(10); Ps. 110(109):3. But in Isa.
14:12 it is a title applied to the king of + Babylon whose fall Isaiah proclaims.
The Heb. here is hélél, shining star, ‘““Day Star’ (RSV). O. Kaiser conjectures a
background of Ugaritic mythology. Isaiah 13-39; A Commentary, 1974, 38 ff.)
which may have had its origin in the fact that as it rises, the morning star grows
feebler because of the rays of the sun. The thought of Christ as the morning star in
495
LIGHT/LIKE
2 Pet. 1:19 presents a marked contrast with this. The verse gives ‘a pictorial
description of the way in which, at His Coming, Christ will dissipate the doubt and
uncertainty by which their hearts are meanwhile beclouded and will fill them with a
marvellous illumination” (J. N. D. Kelly, 4 Commentary on the Epistles of Peter
and of Jude, 1969, 323, who notes similar expressions in Philo, Ebr. 44; Decal. 49).
| C. Brown
—> Black, White, Red, — Creation, — Darkness, Night, — Present, Day, — See,
—> Sun, Moon, Stars
(a). K. Barth, ‘“‘The Light of Life’, CD, IV, 3, 1, 38-165; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971
(see index); R. Bultmann and D. Lihrmann, phainé etc., TDNT IX 1-10; J. H. Charlesworth, ‘‘A
Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-426 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of
John’’, in J. H. Charlesworth, ed., John and Qumran, 1972, 76-106; H. Conzelmann, pids etc.,
TDNT IX 310-58; C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 1935; and The Interpretation of the
Fourth Gospel, 1953, 201-12; E. R. Goodenough, By Light Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic
Judaism, 1935; H. G. May, “‘The Creation of Light in Gn. 1:3-5’’, JBL 58, 1939, 203-10; W.
Michaelis, /ychnos etc., TDNT IV 324-27; A. Oepke, lampo etc., TDNT IV 16-28; R. Schnacken-
burg, “‘Light’’, EBT II 503-9; and The Gospel according to St John, 1, 1968; D. Tarrant, ‘““Greek
Metaphors of Light’’, The Classical Quarterly, 54, 1960, 181-7; D. O. Via, ‘‘Darkness, Christ,
and the Church in the Fourth Gospel’’, S/T 14, 1961, 172 ff.; Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the
Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, 1962.
(b). S. Aalen, Die Begriffe ‘“‘Licht” und ‘‘Finsternis” im Alten Testament, im Spatjudentum und im
Rabbinismus, 1951; and “Licht und Finsternis’’, RGG* IV 357 ff.; H. Bardtke, Die Handschriften-
funde am Toten Meer, 1953, 97 ff.; G. Baumbach, Qumran und das Johannesevangelium, 1958, 46 ff. ;
J. C. Bott, ‘““De notione lucis in scriptis s. Ioannis Ap.”, Verbum Domini 19, 1939, 81-91; R.
Bultmann, ‘‘Zur Geschichte der Lichtsymbolik im Altertum, Philologus 97, 1948, 1 ff. (reprinted
in Exegetica, 1967, 323 ff.); and ‘“‘Weihnachten’’, Glauben und Verstehen, III, 1960, 76 ff.; B.
Bussmann, Der Begriff des Lichtes beim heiligen Johannes, 1967; C. Colpe, ‘‘Lichtsymbolik im
alten Iran und antiken Judentum’’, Studium Generale, 18, 1965, 116-33; M. Dibelius, ‘“‘Die
Vorstellung vom gottlichen Licht”, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1915, 1496 ff.; J. Dupont, ‘‘Jésus-
Christ. Lumiére du Monde”’, Essais sur la christologie de S. Jean, 1951, 61-105; C. Edlund, Das
Auge der Einfalt, 1952; K. Galling, ““Lampe’’, Biblisches Reallexikon, 1937, 347 ff.; F. Heiler,
Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion, 1961, 43 ff.; J. Hempel, ‘“Die Lichtsymbolik im Alten
Testament”, Studium Generale 13, 1960, 352-68; P. Humbert, ““La Théme Véterotestamentaire
de la lumiére’’, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 99, 1966, 1-6; F. N. Klein, Die Licht-
terminologie bei Philon von Alexandrien und in den hermetischen Schriften, 1962; G. Molin, Die
Sohne des Lichts. Zeit und Stellung der Handschriften vom Toten Meer, 1954; F. N6tscher, Zur
Terminologie der Qumran-Texte, 1956, 76 ff.; E. Percy, Untersuchungen tiber den Ursprung der
johanneischen Theologie, 1939, 23-79; H. Preisker, ‘‘Jiidische Apokalyptik und hellenistischer
Symbolismus im Johannes-Evangelium, dargelegt am Begriff ‘Licht’”’, TLZ 77, 1952, 673-78;
M. Saeb, ’6r, THAT I 84-90; H. Schar, Erldsungsvorstellungen und ihre psychologischen Aspekte,
1950; R. Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe, 19637; G. Stahlin, ‘Jesus Christus, das Licht der
Welt’, Universitas (Festschrift A. Stohr), I, 1960, 58-78; H. Sedlmayr, Der Tod des Lichtes, 1964,
9 ff.; W. von Soden, “‘Licht und Finsternis in der sumerischen und babylonisch-assyrischen
Religion”, Studium Generale 13, 1960, 647-53; L. R. Stachowiak, ‘“‘Die Antithese Licht-Finsternis:
ein Thema der paulinischen Paranese’’, 7hQ 143, 1963, 385-421; R. von Ungern-Sternberg, “‘Die
Bezeichnungen ‘Licht’ und ‘Finsternis’ im Alten Testament”, Deutsches Pfarrerblatt 65, 1965,
642 ff.; G. P. Wetter, Phos, 1915.
For works relating to gnosticism — the bibliography under Knowledge.
Like, Equal
Although it is impossible to make a clear and universally applicable differentiation
between the two word-groups, as they are often interchangeable, in general the
496
LIKE
isos group indicates more strongly an external, objectively measurable and estab-
lished likeness and correspondence, while the words connected with homoios
express more substantial, essential likeness, hence correspondence in particular
characteristics, specific or generic likeness. Although the term does not appear in
the NT, a note on homoousios has been appended to the article on homoios in view
of the crucial importance of the term in the debates on the person of Christ in the
early church. It was opposed by the Arians but included in the Creed of Nicea (325)
asserting that Christ was “‘of the same substance as the Father’’, and as such
passed into the Nicene Creed.
igoc (isos), equal, corresponding to; igdtnc¢ (isotés),
P| seequuality, fairness; iadtipioc (isotimos), of equal value;
iadwvyoc (isopsychos), of like soul or mind.
idO0C
cL 1. Already in frequent use in Homer, isos and isotés in their earliest stage
express a fundamental rule in the sharing of the booty of war. Care had to be
taken to ensure not only the equality of quantity but also the equality of value
of the objects which were divided up. Hence, isos and isotés indicate:
(a) Numerical and physical equality, e.g., of number, value (equal interest rates,
number of votes, sums of money, dimensions in space or time; water and wine
mixed in equal parts, etc.).
(b) By extension, substantial equality, e.g., of the copy with its original, of the
assertions of witnesses, of the chances in war.
(c) Political and legal equality. The concept received a spiritual meaning in Gk.
literary and legal life. Gk. democracy in the city states rested on the principle that
all citizens possessed equal standing in society and enjoyed equal rights. isos and
homoios were used as standing expressions for these political equalities. Judicial
impartiality also rested upon the application of the principle of equality to all
arties. Hence, isos became the expression for impartial, and came close to meaning
the same as dikaios, just (> Righteousness), so that the two concepts could be
interchanged. Beyond impartiality in the legal sphere the application of the prin-
ciple of equality meant particularly that which must be conceded to every citizen,
that which is right and fair.
2. The relationship between justice and fairness was differently defined in the
individual philosophical schools. In Stoic teaching on virtue, rectitude and fair-
ness stem from the will for justice. In Philo (Spec.Leg. 4, 231) it is the other way
round: isotés métér dikaiosynés, “‘fairness is the mother of justice.” Finally, the
two concepts can become an interchangeable pair: ison é dikaion, “fair or
right.”
3. (a) Behind the idea of legal equality and fairness lay fundamental philo-
sophical convictions about the essential equality of all men, convictions not yet
thought out when we meet them in Homer, but philosophically established in
Plato and Aristotle. In the originally rigoristic Stoic ethic the thought of the
homogeneity of mankind even led to the levelling out of the natural differences in
good or evil thoughts and deeds, with the result that graduations were looked upon
as of only little significance and no longer as decisive. Good is good and evil is
without distinction evil.
497
LIKE
(b) As a principle of order isotés means cosmic harmony, the balancing of all
forces. This cosmic principle is reflected in human striving for equality.
(c) This sense of equality, so strongly developed in Gk. intellectual life, led
eventually in Hellenism via the veneration of heroes to the doctrine of deification
through the application of philosophical ideas to the concept of salvation. Already
in Homer’s epic, as later in tragedy, the heroes who were believed to possess divine
power were spoken of as daimoni isos, isotheos, isodaimon, godlike, like the gods.
Plato showed in philosophy the ideal way: homoiousthai tod thed kata to dynaton,
“become as far as possible like god’’ (Theaet. 176). Correspondingly, the ideal
“divine man” was also to a certain extent équal to god, isotheos (cf. Homer, J/. 2,
565; Od. 1, 324; Plato, Phdr. 255a).
oT 1. In the LXX isos and isotés are not very frequent. isos for the most part
translates the comparative particle k* (thus predominantly, in Job, e.g. 5:14;
10:10) or ’ehad in comparative juxtapositions (thus in Ezek. 40:5—9). Of the many
compounds formed with isos, only isopsychos has a Heb. counterpart: k*‘erk?, my
equal (Ps. 55:13 [MT 55:14]; cf. Deut. 13:6). No others appear until writings of
the Hellenistic period and express more strongly Hellenistic ideas, which are
connected above all with the political principle of equality: e.g., iségoreomai, to
speak with the same freedom (Sir. 13:11); isomoiros, having an equal share (2
Macc. 8:30); isonomed, to have equal rights (4 Macc. 5:24); isopolités, a full
citizen with equal rights (3 Macc. 2:30).
2. In the language of wisdom and religion, on the other hand, one can establish
characteristic differences from Gk. usage which stand out even more clearly in the
case of — homoios and its derivatives. The natural, essential equality of all men
is seen above all in their transitoriness and frailty, in the suffering of birth and death
(Wis. 7:3 6). In contrast to Gk. veneration of heroes and the thought of a deifica-
tion of man, the fundamental distance between God and his mortal creatures is
stressed: no mortal may dare wish to be God’s equal (isotheos, 2 Macc. 9:12), not
even the heavenly beings may be likened to him (isod, Ps. 89:7). ““The OT echoes
with majestic monotony the question ‘Who is like God?’ ”’ (G. Stahlin, TDNT III
352; cf. Isa. 44:7, tis hosper ego, ““Who is like me?’’; similarly Jer. 10:6; 49:19). For
this reason the Satanic suggestion, ““You shall be as God!’ (Gen. 3:5, LXX theoi,
““gods’’) is the fundamental temptation of man and his succumbing to it stands at
the beginning of a human history full of suffering (on Gen. 1:26 — homoios OT).
3. In Rabbinic Judaism, with all its delight in the law and striving after faithful-
ness to it, there was the idea that, despite the different standards of fulfilment of
the law in this life, in eternity all believers in the messiah would receive equal
rewards as a gift of grace (SB I 832 f.). For the messiah will so lead his people that
every member, in the presence of his grace, will be equal to all the others (Ps. Sol.
17:41-46).
NT In the NT we find the adj. isos 8 times (in all four Gospels, also in Acts, Phil.,
and Rev.) — this includes the neut. plur. isa used as an adv. in Phil. 2:6; isotés
3 times (2 Cor. and Col.); isotimos only in 2 Pet. 1:1; isopsychos only in Phil. 2:20.
1. In a few passages the use of isos remains within the framework of secular Gk.,
as it is reflected partly in the LXX: it marks equality of size (Lk. 6:34; Rev. 21:16)
and conversely at the trial of Jesus the lack of unanimity in the evidence of the
498
LIKE
witnesses (Mk. 14:56, 59). In Phil. 2:20 Paul recgmmends Timothy to the con-
gregation as a fully like-minded (isopsychos) and reliable colleague.
2. (a) The equality among Christians, which transcends all national and religious
frontiers, with regard to their participation in salvation (— Fellowship) is ex-
perienced as a supernatural act, through one and the same experience of the Spirit,
which removes all barriers between Jewish Christians and Gentiles (Acts 11:17; cf.
2 Pet. 1:1, isotimos, ‘“‘of the same kind’’, lit. “equal in value’’). This removal of
differences is continued by Jesus’ statement on the eschatological equality of
Christians. They will receive the same — reward (misthos) in heaven as a gift of
grace, whether they entered the work in the vineyard early or late (Matt. 20:12).
(b) The existing social inequalities of the members of the congregation, however,
are not denied or simply removed. But the fellowship of poor and rich, of masters
and slaves, receives new rules and standards, and this through — love as a new
regulating principle of life between Christians. Thus masters are exhorted to treat
their slaves justly and with fairness (isotés; Col. 4:1). They are no longer a posses-
sion subject to their master’s caprice, but — brothers in Christ. Brotherly love
always cares for the needy as, for example, in the original community in Jerusalem
(Acts 2:44 f.; 4:36 f.), so that the differences also between wealthy and poor do
not become a cause of distress (— Fellowship, art. koinos).
With these assumptions Paul can appeal to the Corinthians on the ground of
their experience of equality as Greeks when he exhorts them as something self-
evident to give of their own surplus to meet the lack of the community in Jerusalem,
so that there might be an equality (isotés; 2 Cor. 8:13, 14).
This new attitude of brotherly love means being free to love one’s > enemy. It
surpasses the law of give in order to get, which even sinners practise when they
help one another in order “‘to receive as much again” (Lk. 6:34).
(c) External inequality is not called into question, neither are internal differences
within the community. The — gifts (charismata) of — grace are various and are
variously divided (Matt. 25:14f.; 1 Cor. 12:28 ff.; Rom. 12:6 ff.; Eph. 4:16;
Mk. 4:24; Rom. 12:3). But from the picture of the — body and its members
Paul demonstrates their coordination and their equality of value in Christ (1 Cor.
12:12 ff.). The uniting force is love (1 Cor. 13).
The idea of — reward (misthos), undergoes a limitation in the NT. It is not the
“axle of piety’ as it was, so often, in Judaism (cf. Sir. 44:21). If it is still retained,
it is chiefly in relation to the last — judgment, which will not leave unbelief and
its deeds unpunished. But grace cannot be earned. It is a gift, of which all who
receive it are equally unworthy (Rom. 11:32). |
The secular forms of equality, “which are determined by earthly law and righte-
ousness, are confronted in the NT by another kind of equality which is established
by the love of Christians and by the divine gifts of grace” (G. Stahlin, 7DNT III
348).
3. Two passages speak of Jesus’ equality with God.
(a) In Jn. 5:17 Jesus says, ““My Father is working still, and I am working.”
Previously he had broken the — Sabbath commandment, whereupon the Jews
taxed him with making himself equal with God. In certain respects they were right
to do so, for on their assumptions they could only understand his assertion of
equality as a flagrant presumption of independence from God (R. Bultmann, The
499
LIKE
Gospel of John, 1971, 245; SB II 462 ff.), whereas for Jesus it signified exactly the
reverse. As the obedient Son, he revealed the Father, without the greatness of the
Father (Jn. 14:28) which was working through him being thereby damaged. The
Son is thus equal to the Father in the harmony of their working (5:19 ff.). One can
therefore conceive the equality of Jesus with God expressed in Jn. 5:18 as “equality
of dignity, will and nature’ (TDNT III 353).
(b) The hymn to Christ in Phil. 2:6-11 contains the assertion that Jesus “‘did
not count equality with God a thing to be grasped [ouch harpagmon hégésato to
einai isa thed|, but emptied himself taking the form of a servant, being born in the
likeness [homoidmati] of men”’ (vv. 6 f.). The numerous complex problems of this
passage can only be barely indicated here. First may be noted the contention of E.
Kasemann that this statement comes in a “sequence of occurrences in a single
event’ and therefore does not present “‘a definition of essence in the manner of a
patristic christology” (Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I, 1960, 75). Thus it
does not permit us to treat it in isolation as a statement of the kind of equality with
God possessed by the pre-existent Jesus. The decisive point is the assertion of pre-
existence and the consequent existence in the sphere of God. The striking thing,
therefore, in the statement of Phil. 2:6f. is that the Pre-existent One entered
without reserve the sphere of man, death and historical existence in all its ambi-
guity. It is not just a question of exemplary obedience (v. 8), or ‘“‘model humility”
(E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus, [1928] 1941, 42), but objectively of incarnation. The
revelation involves renouncing the glory of divine status and living under the
conditions of a fully human existence. For discussion of kenotic christology and
the interpretation of Phil. 2 — Empty, art. kenod; — Form, arts. morphé and
schema. E. Beyreuther
———_~. | Cptolog (homoios), like, of the same nature, similar;
| OLLOLOG | SOU) art é ar ih
LLoi@s (homoids), likewise, so, similarly, in the same way;
Op010@ (homoiod), make like, compare; dyoldtyc (homoiotés), likeness, similarity,
agreement; Ouoiwmpa (homoioma), likeness, image, copy, appearance; Opoimais
(homoidsis), likeness, resemblance; OpoiomaOyc (homoiopatheés), with the same
nature; 2apopoioc (paromoios), like, similar; mapopoiad¢ @ (paromoiazo), be like;
apoLolow@ (aphomoiod), make like, similar.
CL 1. The adj. homoios is derived from the root, homos, which is connected with
hama, at the same time, together (cf. Lat. simul, at the same time, together;
similis, like), and has been in general use since Homer. Four meanings are to be
distinguished:
(a) Of the same kind, like, of the same condition, referring to persons and
things. As a mark of such a state of affairs, homoios more frequently occurs linked
with isos, to emphasize expressly similarity of kind. On the other hand, homoios and
isos can even on occasion be interchanged.
(b) Of the same character, hence of the same value, endowed with the same
rights (fellow-member of a party, like-minded companion). Thus hoi homoioi, the
peers, in Sparta and similarly constituted Gk. city states, were the citizens who
possessed the same right of access to all offices (Xenophon, Hellenica 3, 3, 5).
500
LIKE
(c) What is divided equally to all, the common, e.g. in possessions or fate
(homoié moira, Homer, I/. 18, 20).
(d) In geometry homoios signifies similar figures in the sense of equal (cf. TDNT
V 187).
2. The vb. homoiod remains within this range which the adj. occupies. From
Homer on it is used in this sense trans. to make someone like a person or thing,
then to hold in similar regard, to compare; pass. to be like, to resemble.
3. The nouns homoiotés, homoidsis and homoioma are at times virtually
synonymous meaning likeness, resemblance.
(a) homoiotés (from the pre-Socratic philosophers onwards) and the rarer
homoidsis are very close in meaning. With homoiotés the stress falls on similarity
of kind, likeness, correspondence, which, perhaps, has only just been produced or
discovered and has not existed from the beginning. homoidsis, making or being
like or similar, occurs among the grammarians in the sense of comparison, analogy.
It is also used of species (Aristotle, De Plantis 2, 6,.p. 826b, 32 f.).
(b) homoidma seldom occurs in secular Gk., and means what is like-shaped,
likeness, image. The stress here also lies on a correspondence and similarity, in this
case with reference to the concrete, individual form. homoidma is moving, therefore,
in the direction of eikén (— Image). But even if Plato sometimes used the two
concepts synonymously, there remains a possible distinction in so far as eikdn is
considered more as an entity in itself, whereas homoioma stresses more the element
of comparison. It means what is similar or like, a copy (cf. TDNT V 191).
4. homoiopathés means literally suffering the same, then generally of similar
disposition. The rare paromoios means similar in the sense of almost the same, and
therefore presupposes a certain lack of correspondence with the thing copied or
compared. paromoiazo, to be similar, is only found in the NT (Matt. 23:27).
Similarly, aphomoiod means to make like, to copy; in the pass. to be or become
like.
oT In the LXX homoios has predominantly two Heb. equivalents which belong to
the realm of simple comparison and, taken by themselves, have no particular
significance: k°mo, the extension of the comparative particle k°, as; and min, kind,
sort, in expressions like of the same kind, the like, e.g. similar types of animal in
Lev. 11:14 ff. In contrast the vb. homoioo occurs chiefly for damdah, to be like and
the nouns homoidsis and to a lesser extent homoioma for d°’mit, pattern, shape,
likeness. One can recognize here an extensive correspondence with Gk. usage.
homoioo occurs frequently in the introduction to illustrations and — parables (e.g.
Ps. 144:4; Cant. 2:17; 7:8; Sir. 13:1; damdah in each case). It also features in
statements about the incomparability of Yahweh; e.g ““To whom will you compare
me?” (Isa. 46:5). In Gen. 34:15, 22 f. ’6t, consent to, seems to have been wrongly
translated by homooio.
Of the nouns homoioma occurs most frequently (some 40 times including non-
canonical LXX writings); more rarely homoiosis (5 times for d°mit, 9 times all
told), homoiotés only 5 times (once for min). homoioma stands for tabnit, image
(Deut. 4:16 ff.), and ¢°mtinah, image in connection with the Second Commandment
(Exod. 20:4). In Ezek. 1:4 (ayin) and Ezek. 1:5, 16, 22, 26; 2:1 (1:28); 8:2; 10:1,
501
LIKE
10, 21 f., 23:15 (d*miit) homoiodma denotes the mysterious forms that the prophet
saw. For Isa. 40:18 tini homoidmati hdmoidsate auton the best translation 1s per-
haps: ““What kind of copy will you make of him?” homoiotés in Gen. 1:11 f. is to be
translated kind and in Wis. 4:19 and 4 Macc. 15:4 similarity. In just the same way
pasa homoiosis in Ezek. 8:10 (tabnit) means kinds or images (of creeping and four-
footed beasts) and in Ezek. 10 similarity. Dan. 10:16 (Theodotion) hds homoiosis
hyiou anthropou is best rendered “‘like the form of a man” (Heb. ben ’adam, lit.
son of man, means man).
In contrast to the incomparability of Yahweh, otherwise so strongly stressed
(see also isos OT), Gen. 1:26 states that God created man kat’ eikona hémeteran
kai kath’ homoiosin “in our image and likeness’. eikon translates the Heb. selem
and homoiosis the Heb. d*miit. Admittedly man is here accorded a special creaturely
worth and even has a special kabdéd, glory (Ps. 8:9). But the statement on the image
of God has its real point rather “‘in the purpose for which the image is given
to man” (G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 144). There is no direct
explanation of the likeness. The plur. may even be understood as a concealment.
The hémeteran (our) may mean nothing more than that man was created ‘°*/ohim-
like” (cf. Ps. 8:5 [MT 8:6] m*‘at mé’lohim, “‘little less than God’; cf. LXX
brachy ti par’ angelous, “‘a little less than angels’’). In other words, man is God’s
authorized agent and has his worth only as such (von Rad, op. cit., 146; — Image,
art. eikon for other interpretations).
NT The majority of NT occurrences appear, in the case of the adj., adv. and vb.,
in the Gospels (21 out of 45 occurrences of homoios, 19 out of 31 of homoids, 12
out of 15 of homoiod). However, homoios occurs 21 times in Rev. On the other
hand, the majority of instances of the nouns are in the Pauline writings and Heb.
(homoioma 4 times in Rom. and once in Phil. out of a total of 6; homoiotés only
twice in Heb.; homoidsis once in Jas.). homoiod and aphomoioo each occur only once
in Heb. (the only occurrence of the latter); and homoiopathés once each in Acts
and Jas.
1. Where adj. and vb. (also the single instance of paromoiazo, be like, Matt.
23:27) occur in the Gospels, they are found predominantly in the introductory
formula to Jesus’ — parables, especially in Matt. Lk. prefers the form of the
parable without introduction (e.g. Lk. 7:41; 10:30; 12:16). Only Matt. uses (10
times) the formulae: homoia estin hé basileia ton ouranon, “‘the kingdom of heaven
is like’ (13:31, 33, 44, 45, 47; 20:1); hémoiothé hé basileia ton ouranon, “‘the king-
dom of heaven may be compared to” (Matt. 13:24; 18:23; 22:2); and homoio-
thésetai hé basileia ton ouranon “‘the kingdom of heaven shall be compared”’ (Matt.
25:1). Mk. 13:34 (cf. 4:31) simply has hds, as; and Matt. 25:14 hdsper, as. The
Aramaic underlying these formulations is a terse construction in the dative case
using /°. J. Jeremias holds that this should be rendered: “‘It is the case with... as
with... .”’ (The Parables of Jesus, 1963", 101). The point of comparison, e.g., in
Matt. 13:45 is not the merchant but the pearl; in Matt. 22:2 it is not the king but
the wedding feast, etc. The construction corresponding to the developed dative
beginning occurs, e.g., in Lk. 13:20 f., ‘““To what shall I compare the kingdom of
God? Where it is concerned it is as...”, or more broadly Mk. 4:30 f. (On the
whole question see J. Jeremias, op. cit., 100-3; —> Parable, art. paraboleé).
502
LIKE
2. In other passages homoios is found in very varied connections.
(a) In Matt. 22:39, in the double commandment, love for one’s neighbour is
placed beside love for God as its necessary counterpart and illustration (homoia;
—> Brother, art. plésion; — Command; — Law; — Love). According to Jn. 8:55,
Jesus would be a liar, a denier of the revealing and sending God like his opponents
(homoios hymin pseustés, “a liar like you’), if he were to be silent and avoid giving
offence (cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 300 f.).
(b) homoios also occurs in connection with the polemic against the worship of
false gods in Acts 17:29. The idea that God cannot be depicted struck a chord
among educated Gks.; but it was to just such that the speech before the Areopagus
sought to present an apology for Christianity as the model of the only true worship
of the “unknown god” (v. 23; — God, art. theos NT 4 (b)). Rom. 1:23 also belongs
to the polemic against the worship of false gods. Through their images the heathen
have ‘‘exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling [en homoid-
mati eikonos| mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles” (cf. O. Michel, Der
Brief an die Romer, KEK 4, 1966!°, 60; N. Hyldahl, ‘A Reminiscence of the Old
Testament in Romans i. 23”, NTS 2, 1955-56, 285-88; G. Bornkamm, ‘“‘The
Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1-3)”, Early Christian Experience, 1969,
47-70; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC, I, 1975, 119 f.). Thereby
the revelation of the true God was negated, the God to whom, according to wv. 19 f.,
the heathen also had access (— God, art. theos NT 4 (b)).
Acts 14:11 is also concerned with a naive, heathen belief in false gods. Here the
crowd thought that their gods, Zeus and Hermes, had taken on human form
(homoidthentes) in Barnabas and Paul. The apostles protested, indicating that
they too were ordinary men (homoiopathés, of like nature) and mere messengers of
the living God (v. 15). homoiopathés occurs otherwise only in Jas. 5:17 — Elijah
was like us a mortal man.
(c) 1 Jn. 3:2 expresses the expectation that we shall be like Jesus (homoioi auté
esometha) at his parousia, and see him as he 1s (— Present, art. parousia). For the
present we are instructed to seek the true knowledge of Christ in his word and this
word only allows us a token knowledge of his true being (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12). At the
parousia, on the other hand, an unimpaired relationship will be possible, on “‘the
same level of being’’ (F. Hauck, N7D 10, 129 f.). However, the writer does not
intend this isolated remark to be a speculative description of future likeness to God.
He prefaces it with the observation: “‘we are God’s children now; it does not yet
appear what we shall be.” And he follows it with an exhortation to purity.
In Rev. 1:13 and 14:14 the “one like a son of man”’ is to be interpreted within
the framework of Son of man christology (~ Son of God, art. hyios tou anthrépou).
The “‘son of man’”’ of Dan. 7:13, the divinely appointed, kingly judge of the world,
is the exalted Christ, the coming messiah. On the grammatical construction see Funk
§182(4).
(d) homoios occurs elsewhere in comparisons, without having any particular
stress of its own: in Gal. 5:21 in the phrase “‘and the like [kai ta homoia]’’; similarly
in Mk. 7:13 “‘and many such things [kai paromoia toiauta polla]’; cf. also, e.g.,
Rev. 2:18; 4:3, 6, 7 in symbolic comparisons. The same applies in Rev. 9:7 for
homoioma which RSV and Arndt (570) render “‘appearance’’.
3. homoioma plays an important rdéle in the christological statements of Rom.
503
LIKE
and Phil. in expressing both the divinity of the Pre-existent One and the humanity
of the Incarnate One.
(a) Rom. 5:14 asserts that mankind as a whole, like — Adam, has been subjected
to the rule of death, even if it has not sinned in exactly the same way as he (epi té
homoiomati). Adam is the — type of Christ, the Last Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45).
What Christ brings about by grace surpasses by far the equivalent effect of the fall
of the first man (pollé mallon, v. 15; — Fullness, art. perisseud).
(b) Rom. 6:5 presents certain difficulties of exegesis: ‘““For if we have been
united [symphytoi gegonamen| with him in a death like his [t6 homoidmati tou
thanatou autou], we shall certainly be united in a resurrection like his [a/la kai tés
anastaseos esometha]’ (RSV). The interpretation depends on whether one under-
stands homoioma in this verse concretely as a picture, the symbolic representation
of something else, or as the actual realization of an event by means of a symbolic
representation. If one prefers the second rarer, but here very appropriate alternative,
the text would mean: “In the act of baptism the death of Jesus Christ is present,
although in a different form from that on Golgotha,” and we are “‘received into
the same saving event”’ (symphytoi means lit. “‘grown together”; O. Michel, op. cit.,
154; cf. J. Schneider also TDNT V 192-95).
(c) Rom. 8:3 also presents difficulties. ““For God has done what the law, weak-
ened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh
[en homoidmati sarkos hamartias| and for sin [kai peri hamartias] he condemned sin
in the flesh” (RSV). The difficulties have their origin in the theological problem of
grasping conceptually the incarnation, i.e. the paradox of how Christ can be fully
God and fully man, and applying it to the justification of the sinner. “‘Paul wants to
emphasize that the power of sin is a cosmic unity, but that it is broken into at one
absolutely specific point’? (O. Michel, op. cit., 190). By remaining obedient under
the form of our bodily existence and bearing its burden Jesus “‘became in a unique
sense a sign of the righteousness of God” (O. Michel, ibid.).
(d) Similarly in Phil. 2:7 the Incarnate One is described as “‘being born in the
likeness of men [en homoidmati anthropdn genomenos]” (RSV). He took on human
form, and became like man. There are still those who try to interpret this likeness
as not real, but merely apparent. J. Schneider, for example, appears to come near
to this, when he says that “‘even as man He remained at the core of His being, what
He had been before” (TDNT V 197). All interpretations which tend in this direction
can hardly avoid the danger of some form of docetism, even when the contrary is
asserted? Likewise it seems to us that one cannot, following on v. 5, determine the
tenor of Phil. 2: 5-11 as ethical (Jesus surrendered his divine nature by a free decision,
he voluntarily practised obedience “‘unto death’’). This would result in homoioma
being merely the model for the obedience of faith. However, E. Kasemann has
shown that the hymn is to be understood eschatologically and soteriologically
(Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I, 1960, 51 ff.). What has already been said
about Rom. 8:3 applies here unequivocally. Christ has in fact taken a historically
unique, unambiguously human form. He was in fact delivered to death, the curse
of sinful men (cf. Gal. 3:13), although he himself was sinless (cf. Heb. 4:15). Thus
at a specific point in time he broke the power of sin and death.
Here, too, the mystery of the saving significance of the incarnation must be
504
LIKE
expressed in words which cannot serve as a basis for dogmatic speculations, for
this mystery can only be described in terms of paradox.
4. (a) Heb. also uses homoiod, aphomoiod and homoiotés in connection with
christological statements. Christ “had to be made like his brethren in every respect
[kata panta tois adelphois homoidthénai]’ (2:17). Hence he was tempted like us
‘in quite the same way (kath homoiotéta]” (4:15; cf. Arndt, 570). ‘“‘The becoming
like signifies being bound to us in history and humanity, in temptation, suffering
and dying” (O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrder, KEK 13, 19661", 163). That
Christ took flesh and blood and thus was placed in the situation of man before God
is seen in the light of theological reflection as a matter of — necessity (‘the had to
[Opheilen]’, 2:17). For only thus can the sentence of death, which hangs over man,
be averted (cf. O. Michel, ibid).
(b) In Heb. 7 the Son of God is compared with — Melchizedek in the form of
type and antitype. “God is the artist who allows a sign of the first age to correspond
with the event of the last’’ (O. Michel, op. cit., 163). Melchizedek is said to resemble
(aphomoiomenos) the Son of God (7:3). His priesthood is not limited in time. No
genealogy is given, and his birth and death find no mention in the OT. Hence
rabbinical exegesis concluded that he possessed a special being and office (SB III
694 f.). So when, according to Heb. 7:15, Christ is installed in his priestly office ‘‘in
the likeness [kata tén homoiotéta| of Melchizedek’’, what is being said is that he
has an office not limited in time and a share in the power of indestructible life
(v. 16), to which he has opened the way of access (cf. 10:19 ff.) for his brothers
(2:17) as their pioneer or originator (12:2; — Begin, art. archégos).
5. The only other verse in which homoi6sis occurs (Jas. 3:9) warns against the
sins of the tongue (— Word, art. gldssa). The tongue is capable of contradictory
opposites: —> blessing God and — cursing man who, according to Gen. 1:26, is
created in the image (kath’ homoiosin) of God. Therefore to curse man is indirectly
to curse God. E. Beyreuther, G. Finkenrath
6. The term homoousios became one of the crucial terms in the history of Chris-
tian doctrine in view of its central importance in the Arian controversy. Arius
and his followers denied the divinity of Christ. At the Council of Nicea (325)
homoousios (of the same substance or stuff, of one substance, consubstantial) was
inserted into the creed adopted by the council to express the faith of the church.
It was reaffirmed by the Council of Constantinople (381). But in the intervening
years it was questioned not only by the Arians but by many churchmen who were
uneasy about making a term not contained in the Scriptures the test of orthodoxy.
It was defended by Athanasius on the grounds that it contains “‘the sense of the
Scriptures’ (Epistola de decretis Nicaenae synodi 21; cf. Gregory Nazianzen,
Orationes 31, 23 f.). In particular, Athanasius appealed to the fact that Christ was
the offspring (gennéma) of the Father (— Birth, art. gennad). Among the passages
he appealed to were Jn. 1:18; 6:46; 8:42; 10:30; 14:10.
Originally homoousios had a non-theological generic sense meaning ‘‘made of
the same stuff”, and was applied to physical objects which cannot be composed of
identical portions of matter. It was used thus by Eusebius (Demonstratio evangelica
1, 10, 13) and Basil the Great (Adversus Eunomium 2, 19). Diodore of Tarsus
505
LIKE
(Commentary on Psalms 54:4) and Chrysostom (Homiliae 16, 2 in 1 Tim.) used it in
the sense of fellow men.
In a simple theological sense it was quite a common term among gnostic writers,
as is shown by orthodox opponents such as Epiphanius (Haer. 33, 7, 8), Irenaeus
(Haer. 1, 15, 1), Hippolytus (Haer. 7, 22, 7) and Tertullian (Adv.Herm. 44; Lat.
consubstantialis). They saw it as the nature of the Good to produce or beget
objects similar to itself and homoousios with itself. Both Clement of Alexandria
(Strom. 2, 16; 74, 1) and Origen (Commentarii in Joannem 13, 25, 149) argued
against those gnostics who said that some men are homoousios with the unbegotten
nature.
Commenting on Wis. 7:25, where wisdom is said to be “‘a breath of the power
of God, and a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty’, Origen wrote: “Both
these illustrations suggest a community of substance between Father and Son.
For an effluence would appear to be homoousios, i.e. of one substance with, that
body of which it is an effluence or vapour’’ (Fragmenta in Heb.; cf. De prin. 4,
4,1).
Prior to the Council of Nicea it seems that homoousios simply meant “‘of one
substance”’ as applied to material objects. When the metaphor was applied to the
divine persons, its limitations were clearly recognized. The emperor Constantine
who urged the term upon the Council of Nicea emphasized that it was not being
used as it would be of physical objects, “‘nor as if the Son subsisted out of the Father
by way of division or any sort of severance” (Eusebius, Epistula ad Caesarienses
4). One of the reasons for the term being rejected by Arius and his followers was
that they understood it in the material sense only (Arius, Epistula ad Alexandrum
Alexandrinum). The Creed of Nicea declared that: ‘““We believe ...in one Lord
Jesus Christ ... begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father [homoousion
t6 patri].”’ It was intended to be anti-Arian, suggesting, it would seem, nothing
more nor less than that the Son shares the same divine nature as the Father.
A. Robertson saw the formula of Nicea as “‘the work of two concurrent influences,
that of the anti-Origenists of the East, especially Marcellus of Ancyra, Eustathius
of Antioch, supported by Macarius of ‘Aelia’, Hellanicus of Tripolis, and Asclepas
of Gaza, and that of the Western bishops, especially Hosius of Cordova’’ (St.
Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, IV, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, 1892, xvii). He further agreed with Harnack that Constantine was
‘“‘prompted’’ by Hosius to insert the phrase homoousion to patri (op. cit., xviii; cf.
A. Harnack, History of Dogma, IV, reprint 1961, 56). It seems clear that Athana-
sius was not the author of the term. As F. Loofs observed, Athanasius was moulded
by the Creed of Nicea, but did not mould the creed himself (Leitfaden zum Studium
der Dogmengeschichte, 19064, 237-43). The minority party at Nicea, led by Hosius,
in all probability saw the term as implying a great deal more than that the Son 1s
God in the same sense as the Father. “For to the Westerns the word implied
identity (tautotés) as well as equality or unity with the Godhead” (T. H. Bindley
and F. W. Green, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, 19504, 24).
The Eastern opponents (the Arians, semi-Arians and Origenists) of the Nicene
formula seized upon the rejection of homoousios by the Council of Antioch in
268. It was the reasoning of Paul of Samosata (fl. 260-72) which led to this step.
Paul had argued that his adoptionist view was the only one possible, on the
506
LIKE
grounds that “‘unless Christ has of man become God, it follows that He is homo-
ousios with the Father; and if so, of necessity there are three ousiai, one the previous
ousia, and the other two from it’’ (Athanasius, De Synodis 45). On this material
interpretation of the term the Council of Antioch could do nothing but reject it.
However, as Athanasius points out, the Council of Nicea “‘understanding Paul’s
craft, and reflecting that the word homoousios has not this meaning when used of
things immaterial, and especially of God”’ (ibid.), rightly chose to use it.
The opponents of Nicea saw the term as an open door for Sabellianism. The
Sabellians of Libyan Pentapolis in their dispute with Dionysius of Alexandria
(c. 260) had accused the latter of failing to describe the Son as homoousios with the
Father (Athanasius, De Sententia Dionysii 18). When the pro-Nicene Marcellus of
Ancyra and his deacon Photinus moved towards Sabellianism, the Arians saw this
as confirmation of their contention that the supporters of homoousios were im-
plicitly Sabellian and did not believe in the separate identity of the Son. However,
Basil the Great (c. 370) supported Athanasius in his use of the term, and added
that in fact it was a safeguard against Sabellianism, “‘since a unitary object cannot
be homoousios with itself; the term implies plurality of hypostasis” (Epistula 52, 3).
The point was also made in 374 by Epiphanius (Ancoratus 6, 4).
In the years after Nicea the Arian party gradually gained the upper hand in the
East to such an extent that the more moderate Origenists, under Basil of Ancyra,
felt compelled to rally (358) around the compromise formula homoiousios (of like
substance). The statesmanship of Athanasius and Hilary then gradually won them
over to homoousios (De Synodis 41). In 381 at the Council of Constantinople the
phrase homoousion t6 patri was once more accepted into the creed as the orthodox
view of the church, and Arianism was rejected. Summing up the dispute, the his-
torian Socrates was to write in the 5th century: “‘The situation was exactly like a
battle by night, for both parties seemed to be in the dark about the grounds on
which they were hurling abuse at each other. Those who objected to the word
homoousios imagined that its adherents were bringing in the doctrine of Sabellius
and Montanus. So they called them blasphemers on the ground that they were
undermining the personal subsistence of the Son of God. On the other hand, the
protagonists of homoousios concluded that their opponents were introducing
polytheism, and steered clear of them as importers of paganism. ... Thus, while
both affirmed the personality and subsistence of the Son of God, and confessed
that there was one God and three hypostases, they were somehow incapable of
reaching agreement, and for this reason could not bear to lay down arms” (Historia
Ecclesiastica, 1, 23).
The question whether the Holy Spirit is horncowsos with the other two divine
persons was considered by Athanasius (c. 359). He held that although the Spirit
is not directly called God, he is shown as belonging to the Word and the Father,
and as sharing one and the same substance (homoousios) with them (Epistulae ad
Serapionem, 1, 27). In 362 at the Council of Alexandria this proposition was
accepted (Tomus ad Antiochenses 3; 5 f.). Epiphanius writes that the Holy Spirit is
‘not begotten, not created, not fellow-brother nor brother to the Father, nor fore-
father nor offspring, but out of the same substance [homoousios] of the Father
and Son’”’ (Ancoratus 7, 7 f.).
“The single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept
507
LIkE/LORD
of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity’ (Codex Theodosianus 16, 1, 2, A.D. 380)
became the norm of orthodoxy. It was professed by Damasus of Rome in 372 and
was accepted by the Council of Antioch in 379. Its acceptance at Constantinople
in 381 is seen in the Fifth Canon of the Council and in the Council’s Creed.
M. Farmery
—> God, — Image, — Man, — Melchizedek, —> Type
On ‘sos and homoios:
(a). Arndt, 381 f., 570 f.; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus,
19632; I. H. Marshall, ‘““The Christ-Hymn in Philippians 2:5-11;’’ TB 19, 1968, 104-27; R. P.
Martin, An Early Christian Confession: Philippians I, 5-11 in Recent Interpretation, 1960; and
Carmen Christi: Philippians ti. 5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian
Worship, 1967; C. F. D. Moule, “‘Further Reflections on Philippians 2:5—11’’, in W. W. Gasque
and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel, Biblical and Historical Essays presented
to F. F. Bruce, 1970, 264-76; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962; J. Schneider, homoios
etc., TDNT V 186-99; G. Stahlin, isos etc., TDNT III 343-55.
On Athanasius and the Arian controversy see B. Altaner, Patrology, 1960; Athanasius, Select
Works and Letters, IV, ed. A. Robertson, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1892;
and Contra Gentiles and De Incarnatione, ed. and tr. by R. W. Thomson, 1971; T. H. Bindley and
F. W. Green, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, 19504; A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian
Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), 19752; A. Harnack, History of Dogma, IV,
reprint 1961; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°; and Early Christian Doctrines, 1968+;
G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 1936; J. Quasten, Patrology, III, 1960; G. C. Stead,
“The Platonism of Arius’, JTS New Series 15, 1964, 16-31; J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius:
Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D. 337, 1957; and Creeds Councils and
Controversies: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church A.D. 337-461, 1966; M. Wiles,
“In Defence of Arius’, JTS New Series 13, 1962, 339-47; and “‘HOMOOUSIOS HEMIN’’, JTS New
Series 16, 1965, 454-61.
(b). D. Georgi, ‘“Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil. 2, 6—11’’, in E. Dinkler, ed., Zeit und Geschichte,
Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag, 1964, 263 ff.; F. Hauck, Die Kirchenbriefe,
NTD 10, 19538; E. Kasemann, ‘“‘Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2, 5-11”, Exegetische Versuche und
Besinnungen, I, 1960, 51 ff.; E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5-11,
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse,
1927-28, 4. Abhandlung, 1928, 19617; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer, KEK 4, 19661; and Der
Brief an die Hebraer, KEK 13, 1966?°.
Lord, Master
One of the basic facts of human existence is the power and authority that some
people have over others. Gk. has two principal words for lord and master. despotés
denotes the lord as owner and master in the spheres of family and public Lfe, where
lordship sometimes entails harshness and caprice. kyrios which occurs more often
means lord, and carries with it overtones of the legality and acknowledged au-
thority of lordship. When a god is called lord, the predominant term is kyrios;
despotés is used very seldom in this connection. In classical antiquity the lord stood
over against the — slave, the servant (doulos).
deanotyc (despotés), lord, master (of a house), owner:
aS oikodeanotys (oikodespotés), the master of a house:
oikKodeaTtotéw (oikodespoted), be master of a house, rule one’s household.
508
OEOTLOTHG
LORD
CL despotés (formed from domos, house and *potis [whence posis], lord) means:
(a) the master of a house (who usually had absolute authority over his house-
hold); (b) master, as opposed to slave; (c) owner; (d) (transferred in the course of
political developments from the sphere of the household to that of politics) the
ruler, who is characterized by the scope of his power and by his high-handedness,
particularly towards subject peoples. Starting from the idea of unlimited possession,
despotés often involves harshness and caprice, whereas kyrios emphasizes more
strongly the idea of the legality with which someone acts.
oikodespotés, master of a house, a pleonastic compound etymologically speaking,
became an astrological technical term in secular Gk.: the planets were oikodespotai
in particular signs of the Zodiac. In this context oikodespotésis meant the pre-
dominance of a planet.
OT despotés occurs only about 60 times in the LXX. Where there is a Heb. original
it mostly translates ’@d6n, lord, master. The word is used less than kyrios.
This was no doubt because despotés expresses the arbitrary, unlimited exercise of
power without any real conditions, which must have been foreign to Israel’s
concept of God. For Israel had experienced the Lordship of God in his gracious,
saving actions in history. Where it is used (especially in later writings) it particularly
emphasizes God’s omnipotence (cf. Isa. 1:24; 3:1; 10:33; Jer. 4:10; 15:11; Jon.
4:3: Dan. 9:8, 15 ff., 19; Wis. 6:7; 8:3; Sir. 23:1; 31[34]:24; 33[36]:1). The
retreat of the term despotés in the face of kyrios is theologically significant. oiko-
despotés does not occur in the LXX.
NT 1. In the NT the word occurs 10 times.
(a) God is addressed in prayer 3 times as despotés (Lk. 2:29 in contrast to
doulos, slave; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10 quoting Zech. 1:12 and Ps. 79:5 [LXX 78:5,
where the LXX translates kyrie]).
(b) despotés is twice used with reference to Christ: 2 Pet. 2:1 (Christ the Master
bought us; the background is the metaphor of the redemption of slaves); and Jude
4 which uses the same underlying idea (despotés alongside kyrios). In both passages
the term is used in opposition to heretical statements. The false teachers deny that
Jesus is despotés. K. H. Rengstorf suggests that “‘despotés is here used rather than
kyrios to suggest the function of Jesus as the One who commands and exercises
influence and power.” The false teachers “‘do not acknowledge Jesus in practice
as the One whose will they must take as their guide” (7 DNT II 49). This interpre-
tation, in the light of the context and of 2 Pet. 2:1, seems more likely than that
which sees Jesus here deliberately placed beside God as Almighty.
(c) Used of earthly lords in the sense of owner despotés occurs in 1 Tim. 6:1;
Tit. 2:9 (douloi, slaves, and despotai are contrasted; cf. douloi and kyrioi in Eph.
6:5; Col. 3:22); and | Pet. 2:18 (oiketai, servants, and despotai). Slaves are exhorted
to be obedient to their masters in order that the faith may not be brought into
disrepute by their disobedience. It has an essentially metaphorical sense in 2 Tim.
2:21 as master of the house. Anyone who purifies himself from false teaching is a
vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the despotés. Here Christ is to be
understood as the despotés.
2. oikodespotés occurs 12 times in the NT, particularly in Matt. (10:25; 13:52;
24:43; in parables oikodespotés illustrates God’s actions by means of the activities
509
LoRD
of the master of the house; 13:27; 20:1, 11; 21:33; cf. Lk. 14:21), where it corres-
ponds to Heb. ba‘al habayit, the owner of a house or land. It is frequently found in
connection with anthropos, man, the master who rules over his household. In
Mk. 14:14 the owner of the ass, on which Jesus intends to ride into the city, is
called oikodespotés. oikodespotés is used pleonastically in Lk. 22:11. If the oiko-
despotés had known when the thief was coming, he would have watched (Matt.
24:43). In the parable of Lk. 13:25 ff. Jesus is the oikodespotés who will shut the
door on those who come late. Through the metaphor of the oikodespotés Jesus is
depicted as the Lord of the — kingdom. In a further word-picture Jesus spoke of
himself as the oikodespotés (Matt. 10:24). His opponents have abused him and
called him Beelzebul (Matt. 12:24; cf. 9:34; — Satan); how much more will the
members of his household (i.e. his —> disciples and followers) be exposed to abuse.
Here oikodespotés is used in parallel with didaskalos and kyrios (v. 24 f.) and charac-
terizes the relationship between Jesus and the disciples as imitation of suffering.
oikodespoteod, rule over house and family, occurs only in 1 Tim. 5:14 1n directions
to younger women to marry and rule their households. H. Bietenhard
KUploc (kyrios), lord, master, owner, Lord; Kupia (kyria),
| «dady, mistress; Kuplaxoc (kyriakos), belonging to the
Lord, the Lord’s; xupidtyc (kyriotés), lordship, dominion; Kupiev@ (kyrieud),
be lord, master, rule; kataxuplev@ (katakyrieud), rule over, subjugate, conquer,
be master of, lord it over.
KU Plog
CL kyrios (attested from Pindar on) adj. having power, authoritative, from to
kyros, power, might; as a noun, lord, ruler, one who has control (over people
things, himself). kyrios always contains the idea of legality and authority. kyrios
is often used beside despotés which means especially an owner (with overtones of
high-handedness). Later anyone occupying a superior position was referred to
quite generally as kyrios and addressed as kyrie (fem. kyria). From here it pene-
trated as a loan-word into the Heb. of the Talmud and Midrash, and also into
Aram. (cf. e.g. Tg. Job 5:2; Tg. Ps. 53:1) to denote God.
1. In classical Gk. of the early period kyrios was not used as a divine title.
Although the term was applied to the gods (e.g. Pindar, Jsth. 5,53; Plato, Leg. 12, 13),
there was no general belief in a personal creator god. The gods were not creators
and lords of fate, but were like men subject to fate. In effect, gods and men belonged
to the same sphere of reality (cf. the beginning of Pindar’s Ode to Alcimidas). The
Gk. of this period did not understand his position as that of a — slave (doulos),
dependent on a god. Nor did he feel himself in any way personally responsible to
the gods. Only in so far as the gods ruled over particular individual spheres in the
world could they be called kyrioi.
2. In this respect the situation was different in the East. “‘For the Orientals the
gods are the lords of reality. Destiny is in their hands’? (W. Foerster, TDNT III
1048). The gods created man who, moreover, was personally answerable to them.
They could intervene in the life of men to save, punish or judge. They also estab-
lished justice and law, which they communicated to men, e.g. through the king.
Therefore they were called lords.
3. Instances of the use of the title Ayrios in Hellenistic times with reference to
510
LoRD
gods or rulers do not occur until the Ist cent. B.c. (cf. W. Foerster, 7DNT III
1049). kyrios basileus, Lord and King, is found frequently between 64 and 50
B.C. In 12 B.c. the emperor Augustus was called theos kai kyrios, God and Lord,
in Egypt (BGU, 1197, I, 15); in Upper Egypt Queen Candace (cf. Acts 8:27) was
called hé kyria basilissa, Mistress and Queen. The title kyrios was also used of Herod
the Great (c. 73-4B.c.), Agrippa I (c. 10 B.c.—A.D. 44) and Agrippa II (A.D. 27—c. 100).
Apart from rulers, high-officials-could also receive this title, e.g. a Ptolemaic govern-
or. The same was probably true in Syria as in Egypt; not until the Ist cent. B.c.
were eastern lords called kyrios. Thus we find titles like kyrios theos, Lord and
Governor. kyrios was used of the gods where, in contemporary popular thought
and speech, they were referred to as lords. In this case kyrios translated the under-
lying Semitic equivalents (e.g. ’a@d6n, mara’, fem. rabbat). These terms always
bore a personal suffix (my, our, etc.) and were placed in front of the name of a
god. Where kyrios was used of a god, the servant (— Slave, art. doulos) who thus
used it stood in a personal relationship of responsibility towards the god, who on
his part exercised personal authority. When, e.g. Heb. ’ad6n denoted the lord of
power, Ayrios was the natural Gk. equivalent. Individual gods were worshipped as
lords of their cultic communities and of the separate members of the fellowship.
The worship of other lords was not excluded, for none of them was visualized or
worshipped as universal lord. (See further W. Foerster, TDNT II 1049-54.)
4. The Roman emperors Augustus (31 B.c.—A.D. 14) and Tiberius (A.D. 14-37),
in accordance with Roman feeling for justice, rejected the eastern form of mon-
archy and with it all that was bound up in the title kyrios. But Caligula (A.D.
37-41) found the title of kyrios attractive. From Nero (A.D. 54-68) on, who
was described in an inscription as ho tou pantos kosmou kyrios, Lord of all the
World (SIG 814, 31), the title kKyrios occurs more and more frequently. One of the
oldest instances is Acts 25:26. The title kyrios was brought into disrepute again
by Domitian (A.D. 81-96), who had himself called in official letters dominus et
deus noster, Our Lord and God (Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum, 13, 2). After Domi-
tian’s death this title was detested along with his memory (damnatio memoriae).
Nevertheless, it prevailed again later. In and of itself the title Kyrios does not call
the emperor god; but when he is worshipped as divine, the title Lord also counts
as a divine predicate. It was against sucha religious claim, which demanded so much
of the burdened conscience, that the Christians turned and rejected the totalitarian
attitudes of the state. (On the early church and the Roman empire see W. H. C.
Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus, 1965; R. M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine: The
Thrust of the Christian Movement into the Roman World, 1970.)
oT 1. In the LXX kyrios occurs over 9,000 times. It is used to translate ’a@d6n, lord,
and as such refers 190 times to men. It is used only 15 times for ba‘al, lord.
While ba‘al, in marriage and property law, denotes the owner of a wife or piece of
land (e.g. Hos. 2:18; Jdg. 19:22, 23), ’dd6én is determined by social factors and
means the one who commands, the responsible head of a group (e.g. 1 Sam. 25).
Yahweh is rarely called owner (Hos. 2:16 [MT 18]), but more frequently Lord of the
community belonging to him (cf. Ps. 123:22).
In addition kyrios can stand also for g*bir, commander, or (Aram.) mara’, lord,
511
LORD
or Sallit, ruler. In the overwhelming majority of cases (some 6156), however, Ayrios
replaces the Heb. proper name of God, the tetragrammaton YHWH. The LXX
thus strengthened the tendency to avoid the utterance of the name of God, and
finally to avoid its use altogether. The substitution of the title *donay for the proper
name Yahweh was a result of Israe]’s development from a national religion in the
pre-exilic period to an international one in the period of Alexander (356-323 B.c.).
Where originally the exodus was the theological focal point, after the exile the
emphasis fell on the creation of the world. Where kyrios stands for ’ad6n or
-4donay there has been genuine translation, but where, on the other hand, it stands
for Yahweh it is an interpretative circumlocution for all that the Heb. text implied
by the use of the divine name: Yahweh is Creator and Lord of the whole universe,
of men, Lord of life and death. Above all he is the God of — Israel, his ~ covenant
—> people. By choosing kyrios for Yahweh the LXX Gk. text also emphasized the
idea of legal authority. Because Yahweh saved his people from — Egypt and chose
them as his possession, he is the legitimate Lord of Israel. As — Creator of the
world he is also its legitimate Lord with unlimited control over it. (For further
discussion of the use of the title Lord instead of the name Yahweh — God, art.
theos OT 2.)
2. Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the
LXX translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS
(fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters
in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the ©
first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumran even represents the tetragrammaton
by JIAO. These instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going
use of Kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LX X was primarily the work
of Christian scribes (P. E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 19597, 222; cf. S. Jellicoe,
The Septuagint and Modern Study, 1968, 185 f., 271 f.). On the other hand, the
Jews would already have replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral trans-
mission of the Gk. OT text.
3. In post-OT Jewish literature Ayrios first appears as a term for God in Wis.
(27 times, e.g. 1:1, 7, 9; 2:13), then particularly frequently in Philo and Josephus.
Philo seems not to have been aware that Ayrios stood for the tetragrammaton, for
he used theos, God, to indicate the gracious power of God, while kyrios, on the
other hand, for him describes God’s kingly power (e.g. Som. 1, 163). Since the
earliest Egyptian and Syrian instances of gods being called kyrioi, lords, come from
the Ist cent. B.c. the substitution of Ayrios for the tetragrammaton is no doubt
connected with these non-Jewish ascriptions. At about the same time the members
of the Qumran sect, in Heb. biblical MSS, were writing "*ddnay, Lord, instead of
the tetragrammaton. A few fragments from the caves pick out the tetragrammaton
in ancient Heb. script while the rest of the text is written in square characters (on
this see J. A. Sanders in D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield, eds., New Directions
in Biblical Archaeology, 1969, 101-16; and “The Dead Sea Scrolls — A Quarter
Century of Study”, BA 36, 1973, 140; J. P. Siegel, Hebrew Union College Annual
42, 1971, 159-72). The non-biblical texts from Qumran make it clear that *“dénay
was used particularly as an invocation in prayers, and therefore predominantly in
liturgical contexts (1QM 12:8, 18; 1QH passim; 1QSb; 1Q34; 4Q Dibré Ham* orét
[Words of the Luminaries]).
512
LORD
4. In the Aram. scroll of the so-called Genesis Apocryphon (1QGenAp) God
is addressed as mari, my Lord. Apart from this one instance, this form of address
is not found in Aram. In the same text mari is used once by a woman addressing
her husband. Otherwise Aram. uses mar, lord (with personal suffixes) only to
address people who have particular authority, especially in the fields of law or
education. ([{F. F. Bruce]. In 11Q Targum Job mare’ is used as the Aram. rendering
of Heb. sadday, Almighty [Job 34:10, 12]; and in the Aram. Enoch fragments from
Cave 4 maré or maran is found as a designation of God [M. Black, ““The Christo-
logical use of the Old Testament in the New Testament”, NTS 18, 1971-2, 10].)
NT Of the 717 passages in which kyrios occurs in the NT, the majority are to be
found in the Lucan writings (210) and in Paul’s letters (275). This one-sidedness
can be explained by the fact that Luke wrote for, and Paul to, people who lived in
areas dominated by Gk. culture and language. On the other hand, the Gospel of
Mk., more firmly based in Jewish Christian tradition, uses the kyrios-title only 18
times, and these mostly in quotations. The remaining occurrences of kyrios are
spread over the other NT books: Matt. 80; Jn. 52; Heb. 16; Jas. 14; 1 Pet. 8; 2 Pet.
14; Jude 7; and Rev. 23. The fact that kyrios is one of the most frequently used
words in the NT is in accordance with its varied use in the LXX.
1. The secular use of kyrios. The kyrios stands over against the — slave (Matt.
10:24 f.; 18:25, 27; 25:19; Lk. 12:36 f., 46; Eph. 6:5, 9; Col. 3:22). kyrios means
owner (Mk. 12:9; Lk. 19:33; Matt. 15:27; Gal. 4:1), or employer (Lk. 16:3, 5).
The husband faces his wife as kyrios, i.e. as superior (1 Pet. 3:6; cf. Gen. 18:12
LXX). A gen. qualifying kyrios betrays the influence of Sem. (Palestinian) usage
(e.g. Mk. 12:9; Lk. 10:2). Ayrios used as a form of address can emphasize the power
of a superior over an inferior, but it can also be simply politeness (Matt. 18:21 f.;
25:20 ff.; 27:63; Lk. 13:8; Jn. 12:21; 20:15; Acts 16:30). It is also used to address
angels (Acts 10:4; Rev. 7:14) and the unknown in the heavenly vision outside
Damascus (Acts 9:5; 22:8, 10; 26:15). A twice repeated Ayrios corresponds to
Palestinian usage (Matt. 7:12 f.; 25:11; Lk. 6:46). The use of the nom. with the
art. instead of the voc. (Jn. 20:28; Rev. 4:11) is also Sem., as 1s the addition of a
noun in the gen. in place of an adj. (1 Cor. 2:8; 2 Thess. 3:16).
2. God as the kyrios. In accordance with the usage of the Hellenistic synagogues
God is frequently called kyrios, especially in the numerous quotations from the
OT in which kyrios stands for Yahweh, corresponding to the custom of pronounc-
ing the title Kyrios instead of the tetragrammaton in public reading (e.g. Rom. 4:8
= Ps. 32:2; 9:28 f. = Isa. 10:22 f.; 10:16 = Isa. 53:1; 11:3 = Lk. 19:10; 11:34
= Isa. 40:13; 14:11 = Isa. 45:23; 15:11 = Ps. 117:1; 1 Cor. 3:20 = Ps. 94:11;
14:21 = Isa. 28:11 f.). kyrios frequently denotes God in the Lucan birth narra-
tives (e.g. Lk. 1:32; 2:9). kyrios in the gen. accompanying another word corres-
ponds to OT usage: the — hand of the kyrios (Lk. 1:66; Acts 11:21); the — angel
of the Ayrios (Matt. 1:20; 2:13; 28:2; Lk. 1:11; 2:9; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:7);
the — name of the kyrios (Jas. 5:10, 14); the — Spirit of the kyrios (Acts 5:9;
8:39); the — word of the kyrios (Acts 8:25; 12:24; 13:48 f.; 15:35 f.). The formula
“says the kyrios” (Rom. 12:19 = Deut. 32:35; 2 Cor. 6:17 = Isa. 52:11; Rev.
1:8 cf. Exod. 3:14) also comes from OT. To the OT phrase kyrios ho theos the
author of Rev. sometimes adds an emphatic, solemn pantokrator, All-Sovereign
513
LORD
(Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:7; 19:6; 21:22; cf. Arndt, 613 f.). The formula ho
kyrios kai ho theos hémon (Rev. 4:11, cf. Jn. 20:28), our Lord and our God, is
reminiscent of the title adopted by Domitian (cf. cL 4). The liturgical formulae of
Rev. 11:15; 22:6 are remarkable. Jesus was adopting Jewish forms of speech
(ribbon Sel ‘6lam; Aram. maré ‘al°ma’, Lord of the world) when he addressed God
the Father as “‘kyrios of heaven and earth” (Matt. 11:25; Lk. 10:21; cf. Heb. 1:2;
Sir. 51:1; Tob. 7:18; SB I 607; II 176; III 671 f.). God is the kyrios of the (eschato-
logical) harvest (Matt. 9:38; — Seed, Harvest). God is the only ruler, the > King
of kings and the kyrios of lords (cf. Dan. 2:47), who will cause our kyrios Jesus
Christ to appear (1 Tim. 6:15). God is the —> Creator and as such the Lord of
all (Acts 17:24). By addressing and acknowledging God as kyrios, the NT expresses
particularly his creatorship, his power revealed in history and his just dominion
over the universe, and at the same time confesses the continuity of its belief with
that of the OT.
3. Jesus as the kyrios. (a) The earthly Jesus as kyrios. kyrios applied to the earthly
Jesus is in the first instance a polite form of address, as it is with other people.
This no doubt goes back to the title Rabbi (perhaps also to mari, mara’); cf. Mk.
9:5 (rhabbi) with Lk. 9:33 (epistata, Lord) and Matt. 17:4 (kyrie); cf. Jn. 4:14 f.;
5:7; 6:34; 13:6. This form of address also implies recognition of Jesus as a leader,
and willingness to obey him (Matt. 7:21; 21:29 ff.; Lk. 6:46). As Son of man
(— Son of God, art. hyios tou anthropou), Jesus is also kyrios of the —> Sabbath.
He has control over the holy day of God’s people (Mk. 2:28 f.). Even after his
death and — resurrection the words of the earthly Jesus have unrestricted authority
for the Christian community. Paul appealed to words of the kyrios which finally
decide a question (1 Cor. 7:10; 12:25; 1 Thess. 4:15; cf. Acts 11:16; 20:35).
(b) The exalted Jesus as kyrios. The confessional cry used in worship, kyrios
Iésous, Jesus (is) Lord, no doubt originated in the pre-Pauline Hellenistic Christian
community. This — confession is one of the oldest Christian creeds, if not the
oldest. With this call the NT community submitted itself to its Lord, but at the
same time it also confessed him as ruler of the world (Rom. 10:9a; 1 Cor. 12:3;
Phil. 2:11; cf. the title Kosmokrator in Eph. 6:12 used of “‘the world rulers of this
darkness” [cf. Arndt, 446]). God has raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him
to the position of universal kyrios. Moreover, he has “bestowed on him the name
which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9 ff.; cf. Isa. 45:23 f.), 1.e. his own > name
of Lord and with it the position corresponding to the name. (On Phil. 2:5-11 —
Empty, art. kenod nT.) The exalted kyrios, Christ, rules over mankind (Rom. 14:9).
All — powers and beings in the universe must bow the knee before him. When that
happens, God the Father will be worshipped (cf. Eph. 1:20 f.; 1 Pet. 3:22). This is
further implied in the fact that Christ is called the ruler over all the kings of the
earth, Lord of lords and — King of kings (Rev. 1:5; 17:14; 19:15 f.). In this way
Jesus Christ received the same titles of honour as God himself (1 Tim. 6:15; cf.
Dan. 2:47). According to contemporary Jewish thought, the different spheres of the
world in nature and history were ruled by angelic powers. Since Christ has now
been raised to the position of kyrios, all powers have been subjected to him and
must serve him (Col. 2:6, 10; Eph. 1:20f.). When Christ has overcome every
power (1 Cor. 15:25), he will submit himself to God the Father. Thus Jesus’
lordship will have achieved tts goal and God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). The
514
LORD
one God and the one kyrios Jesus stand in opposition to the many gods and lords
of the pagan world (1 Cor. 8:5f., Eph. 4:5 f.).
Scriptural evidence for the exaltation of Jesus and for his installation as Lord
was found in Ps. 110:1 (cf. Matt. 22:44; 26:64; Mk. 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Lk.
20:42 f.; 22:69; Acts 2:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13;
10:12 f.; 12:2; cf. B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, 45-51, 252 ff.;
R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971, 100 ff.). The Jewish interpretation
of this passage from the Pss. looked forward to the messianic future — the messianic
interpretation was for a long time suppressed among the Jews out of opposition
to the church — but in the faith of the Christians this hope was transferred to the
present. The Lordship of the messiah, Jesus, is a present reality. He is exercising
in a hidden way God’s authority and Lordship over the world and will bring it to
completion in the eschatological future. This faith was articulated in Thomas’s
confession (Jn. 20:28): ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou, ““my Lord and my God”’.
Primitive Christianity saw no infringement of monotheism in the installation of
Jesus as Lord, but rather its confirmation (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; Phil. 2:11). It is
God who has exalted the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:36) and made him Lord of all things.
({Ed.] Wilhelm Bousset, a leading exponent of the history of religions school,
argued that the application of the title kyrios to Christ originated with the Gentile
church which appropriated it from the surrounding world of syncretistic religion.
“It was in this atmosphere that Antiochene Christianity and that of the other
primitive Christian Hellenistic communities came into being and had their growth.
In this milieu the young Christian religion was shaped as a Christ cultus, and out
of this environment then people also appropriated the comprehensive formula
Kyrios for the dominant position of Jesus in worship. No one thought this out, and
no theologian created it; people did not read it out of the sacred book of the Old
Testament. They would hardly have dared without further ado to make such a
direct transferal of this holy name of the almighty God — actually almost a deifica-
tion of Jesus. Such proceedings take place in the unconscious, in the uncontrollable
depths of the group psyche of a community; this is self-evident, it lay as it were in
the air, that the first Hellenistic Christian communities gave the title Ayrios to their
cult-hero”’ [Kyrios Christos, 1913, ET 1970, 146 f.] A similar position was adopted
by R. Bultmann [Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 123 ff.; cf. also Bultmann’s
introduction to Kyrios Christos, 7 ff.]. The arguments for and against it are dis-
cussed more fully in the works by W. Foerster, G. Dalman, O. Cullmann, E.
Schweizer, F. Hahn, R. Longenecker and R. H. Fuller listed in the bibliography
below. A telling fact against a purely Hellenistic origin and in favour of a Palestinian
is the Aramaic formula maranatha [1 Cor. 16:22] which means “Lord come’’,
“Our Lord has come’’, or as a prophetic perfect ““The Lord will come’’ [— Present,
art. maranatha]. The ascription of lordship to Christ in this Aramaic formula
indicates that Jesus was already called Lord in Palestinian Christianity at an early
date. The synoptic accounts of the discussion of the lordship of David’s son imply
that this use of the title went back to Jesus himself [Matt. 22:41-46; Mk. 12:35-37;
Lk. 20:41:44; cf. Ps. 110[109]:1]. How can David speak of another as Lord if he
is his son? The question is presented as a dilemma to the Jewish teachers, without
however Jesus being explicitly identified with this ‘‘Lord’”’. The contexts of Matt.
and Mk. intensify this dilemma by recording it immediately after the question
515
LORD
of the great commandment [Matt. 22:23-40; Mk. 12:28-34; — Command; —
Law]. Here the great commandment is defined as loving “‘the Lord your God
[kyrion ton theon sou] with the whole of one’s being. Thus in reply to the Jewish
teachers’ question about the great commandment Jesus declares that this kyrios is
to be given complete and undivided attention. But then Jesus puts to them the
question of this other kyrios with its implied claims: “‘David himself calls him
Lord; so how is he his son?” [Mk. 12:37 par. Matt. 22:45, Lk. 20:44]. This
challenge marks the climax of Jesus’ encounters with the Jewish religious teachers
and leaders. Their failure to respond positively to this challenge marked the point
of no return.)
As far as we can establish, the NT church did not reflect on the relationship of
the exalted Christ to God the Father as did later church doctrinal teaching. One
may perhaps say that there is indeed no developed doctrine of the Trinity in the
NT, but that the writers, particularly in the later strata, thought in trinitarian
forms. (On this — God, art. theos NT 8; and — Like, art. homoios NT 6 on the term
homoousios.)
(c) kyrios and the Lord’s Supper. kyrios figures frequently in expressions con-
nected with the — Lord’s Supper. There are the phrases which are partly pre-
Pauline: “table of the kyrios’” (1 Cor. 10:21); “‘the death of the kyrios’’ (1 Cor.
11:26); “the cup of the kyrios” (1 Cor. 10:21; 11:27); “provoke the kyrios to
jealousy” (1 Cor. 10:22); “not to love the kyrios” (1 Cor. 16:22); “the Lord’s
supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), “‘to be judged by the kyrios” (1 Cor. 11:32), “‘to be guilty
of the body and blood of the kyrios’’ (1 Cor. 11:27). These different expressions
indicate that the Lord’s Supper is the place where the Christian community
submits itself in a special way to the saving work of the kyrios and receives a share
in his body and in his power.
(d) kyrios and Spirit. Paul taught the Christian community to distinguish be-
tween the man who is speaking in the Holy — Spirit and the one who is not (1 Cor.
12:3). A man can only say “Jesus is Lord”’ if he is filled with the Holy Spirit (on
the background of this — Curse, art. anathema; — Confess). Anyone who, by
acknowledging his allegiance to Jesus as kyrios, belongs to the new — covenant
belongs to the sphere of the — Spirit and no longer to that of the old covenant
and of the letter. He stands in — freedom: ‘‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17).
(e) kyrios in epistolary greetings. In the opening (but not the concluding)
greetings of Paul’s letters “‘the [or “‘our’’] Lord Jesus Christ’’ is frequently mentioned
beside God the Father (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3; Phil. 1:2;
2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Phlm. 3). The concluding greeting, with the
phrase “‘the grace of our [or “‘the’’| kyrios Jesus Christ be with you [or “‘with your
spirit; with you all’’]’’, continued the pre-Pauline tradition which probably had its
ultimate origin in the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 16:23; 2 Cor. 13:13; Phlm. 25, and
Rev. 22:17—21). The description of God as the Father of Jesus Christ must go back
to the Gentile-Christian Hellenistic community (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; cf.
1 Pet. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3). The formula was introduced into an originally
Jewish context (the praise of God). The one kyrios Jesus Christ who is contrasted
with the many kyrioi of the pagan world and who is acknowledged as the agent of
creation (1 Cor. 8:6), corresponds to the one God, confessed by Judaism and
516
LORD
preached in the Jewish mission to the Gentiles. Hence, Christian missionaries did
not just call men to faith in God the Father but also to faith in the kyrios Jesus
(Acts 5:14; 18:8; cf. — One, art. heis).
4. The Lordship of the kyrios. (a) The activity of the Christian community
(— Church) before the kyrios Jesus. In every expression of its life the Christian
community stands before the kyrios who has authority and exercises it over the
community (1 Cor. 4:19; 14:36; 16:7). He causes the community to grow (1 Thess.
3:12 f.), bestows authority on the — apostles (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10) and different
ministries on the members of his + body (1 Cor. 3:5; 7:17; 12:5). The kyrios
gives visions and revelations (2 Cor. 12:1). The whole life of the Christian com-
munity is determined by its relationship to the kyrios (Rom. 14:8). The body, i.e.
the complete earthly existence of the Christian, belongs to the kyrios (1 Cor. 6:13).
This precludes dealings with prostitutes. The kyrios gives to each one the measure
of — faith (1 Cor. 3:5; 7:17; Eph. 4:7). He is the kyrios of — peace and gives
peace (2 Thess. 3:16), >» mercy (2 Tim. 1:16) and insight (2 Tim. 2:7). On the
basis of faith in the kyrios Christ, even the earthly relationships between masters
and slaves take on a new aspect. Faithful service of earthly kyrioi is service of the
kyrios of the church (Col. 3:22 ff.; cf. 1 Pet. 2:13).
(b) The formulae “through” (dia) and “‘in”’ (en) the kyrios. The formula “through
the [‘‘our’] Lord Jesus [‘Christ’’]’’, which is probably pre-Pauline, occurs in the
most varied contexts: thanksgiving (Rom. 7:25; 1 Cor. 15:57); praise (Rom. 5:11);
exhortation (Rom. 15:30; 1 Thess. 4:2). In all these phrases the word kyrios is
used in order to claim the power of the exalted Lord for the life of the church and
of the individual.
The phrase “in the Lord” occurs frequently, particularly in Paul, and means
the same as en Jésou Christd: a door was opened for mission (2 Cor. 2:12); Paul
affirms and exhorts (Eph. 4:17; 1 Thess. 4:1); is convinced (Rom. 14:14); people
are received (Rom. 16:2; Phil. 2:29); the church is to rejoice (Phil. 3:1); it is to
stand firm (Phil. 4:1); to work (Rom. 16:21); to greet one another (Rom. 16:22;
1 Cor. 16:19). Christians are to marry in the kyrios, i.e. to enter upon a Christian
—> marriage (1 Cor. 7:39); to be strong (Eph. 6:10); to walk (Col. 2:6); to under-
take service (Col. 4:17). Paul was a prisoner “in the Lord”’ (Eph. 4:1); people are
chosen (Rom. 16:13); beloved (Rom. 16:8; 1 Cor. 4:17); their work is not in vain
(1 Cor. 15:58); the Christian has eternal life (Rom. 6:23); the church is a light
(Eph. 5:8). The whole of life, both in the present and the future, is determined by
the fact of Christ which is expressed by this formula: Paul and his churches stand
in the presence and under the power of the kyrios. (On this question in general see
T. Preiss, Life in Christ, SBT 13, 1954; J. K. S. Reid, Our Life in Christ, 1963.)
(c) Statements about the parousia. In his present existence the Christian 1s
separated from the kyrios and longs to be with him (2 Cor. 5:6, 8). Christians
who are alive at the second coming will, according to Pauline eschatology, be
caught up to meet the kyrios (1 Thess. 4:17). Just as the present life of the church
and of the individual Christian is already determined by the hidden power of the
kyrios, the NT church looks forward to the future, visible return of Christ and to a
final union with the Lord of life and death. For the church believed not only in a
present Lord but in a coming Lord. We read of “‘the day of the kyrios’’ (1 Cor.
1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2); of “the revealing [apokalypsis|
517
LorRD
of the kyrios” (1 Cor. 1:7); “the coming [parousia]”’ of our kyrios’” (2 Thess. 2:1);
of the “appearing [epiphaneia] of the kyrios” (1 Tim. 6:14). Other passages speak
of the coming of the kyrios, of meeting him, of his nearness and of his heavenly
revelation (1 Cor. 4:5; Phil. 4:5; 1 Thess. 6:16 f.; Jas. 5:7f.). Such statements
about the kyrios belong with the eschatological prayer of the Aram.-speaking
church maranatha — Present). When he comes, the exalted One is judge (2 Thess.
1:9; 2:8) and saviour (Phil. 3:20).
5. Derivatives of kyrios. (a) kyria (fem. of kyrios), lady, mistress, owner, mistress
of the house. In the NT it occurs only in 2 Jn. 1, 5, where it refers to the church (cf.
the change from the 3rd person sing. to the 2nd person plur. in v. 6; according to
v. 13 the churches are sisters and their members children, cf. vv. 4, 13). In addressing
the church as lady the author is expressing his respect for it and honours it as a
work of the kyrios.
(b) kyriakos (adj. derived from kyrios), belonging to the Lord. In secular Gk.:
pros ton kyriakon logon means at the owner’s expense; in the language of adminis-
tration it means imperial.
In the NT kyriaké hémera means the Lord’s day, the day on which the kyrios rose
from the dead (cf. Matt. 28:1; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2), which the church honoured
by assembling on it (— Sabbath). John received his revelation on the Lord’s day
(Rev. 1:10). The kyriakon deipnon (1 Cor. 11:20) is the meal of the kyrios, the
—» Lord’s Supper. The expression stands in parallel with trapeza kyriou, the Lord’s
table (1 Cor. 10:21); cf. Isa. 65:11; Philo, Spec.Leg. 1, 221. To sit down at the
table of the kyrios is to receive food from him and through it enter into com-
munion with him. Correspondingly, anyone who takes part in pagan sacrificial
meals enters into communion with demons (cf. H.-J. Schoeps, Theologie und
Geschichte des Judenchristentums, 1949, 192; C. K. Barrett, 4 Commentary on the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 237 f.; > Lord’s Supper). The two activities
are utterly incompatible.
(c) kyriotés, lordly power or position, dominion. In the NT the word occurs in
the plur. with reference to — angelic powers (Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:20 f.). The expres-
sion recalls Eth.En. 61:10: ‘““And He will summon all the host of the heavens, and
all the holy ones above, and the host of God, the Cherubin, Seraphin and Ophannin,
and all the angels of power, and all the angels of principalities, and the Elect One,
and the other powers on the earth (and) over the water”’ (cf. also 1 Cor. 15:24;
Rom. 8:38; Eph. 6:12; Arndt, 461 f.; E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, 1971,
51; G. H. C. Macgregor, “‘Principalities and Powers: the Cosmic Background of
Paul’s Thought’’, NTS 1, 1954-55, 17-28). The NT epistles stress that the exalted
Christ rules over these dominions. kyriotés occurs in the sing. in Jude 8 and 2 Pet.
2:10, where the thought is not of angels but of God’s dominion. False teachers
disregard it in the lust of their defiling passions.
(d) kyrieud, be a kyrios, act as master; be authorized. In the LXX it occurs more
than 50 times, mostly to translate mdasal, rule. In the NT it occurs 7 times (6 in Paul
and one in Luke). The rule of kings over their people is characterized by ambition
(Lk. 22:25, kyrieuousin), because they misuse their power for selfish ends. Paul uses
kyrieuo to describe relationships of power. But the disciples are not to seek to be
the greatest, but rather to serve like Jesus himself (Lk. 22:26 f.). Because Christ has
518
LORD
risen, — death no longer reigns over him, i.e. no longer has any power over him
(Rom. 6:9). Christ died and rose in order that he might reign over the living and
the dead (Rom. 14:9). God is the ruler of those who rule (1 Tim. 6:15). Since
Christians have been baptized into Jesus’ death and have risen with him (Rom.
6:3 f.), sin should not and must not reign over them any longer (Rom. 6:14). For
they no longer stand under — law (art. nomos), but under — grace, i.e. under the
kyrios (Christ (Rom. 7:1, 6). Paul does not want to lord it over the faith of the
Corinthians but to work with them for their — joy (2 Cor. 1:24). Now that Christ
has demonstrated his Lordship over sin and death, Christians should, indeed
must, no longer let themselves be dominated by these powers.
(e) katakyrieuo, rule over, conquer. The LXX uses the word principally to
describe domination by foreigners; it is used of God’s dominion only in Jer. 3:14.
In the NT the word occurs 4 times. It is a characteristic of Gentile rulers to lord it
over the people. The prefix kata- clearly has a negative force and implies that the
princes exercise their rule to their own advantage and contrary to the interests and
well-being of the people (Matt. 20:25; Mk. 10:42). The vb. is also used of the man
with an evil spirit who leaped on the seven sons of Sceva and mastered them
(Acts 19:16) as they attempted to imitate Christian exorcism. The elders are
exhorted, on the other hand, not to exercise their office as lording it over the con-
gregation, but as examples to the flock (1 Pet. 5:2 f.). H. Bietenhard
—> Confess, — Curse, — God, — Jesus Christ, — Son of God, — Present, —
Sabbath, — Spirit
(a). G. Bornkamm, “‘Christ and the World in the Early Christian Message”, Early Christian
Experience, 1969, 14-28; W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the
Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, 1970; F. F. Bruce, ‘‘Jesus is Lord’’, in J. McD. Richards, ed.,
Soli Deo Gloria: New Testament Studies in Honor of W. C. Robinson, 1968, 23 ff.; R. Bultmann,
Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 123 ff.; L. M. Canfield, The Early Persecutions, Studies in
History 55, 1913; H. Conzelmann, An Outline Theology of the New Testament, 1969, 82 ff., 199 ff. ;
O. Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1949; Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian
Conception of Time and History, 1951; ‘“The Kingship of Christ and the Church in the New
Testament”’, The Early Church, 1956, 105—40; The State in the New Testament, 1963?; The Christo-
logy of the New Testament, 19637, 195-237; and Salvation in History, 1967; A. Czégledy, ‘“The
Modern Pattern of Christ’s Lordship”, SJT 12, 1959, 361-72; G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus
Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language, 1902, 324-31;
and Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels, 1929; A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The
New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, 1927*; E. E.
Ellis, ““Saith the Lord’, EQ 29, 1957, 23-28; W. Foerster and G. Quell, Ayrios etc., TDNT III
1039-98; W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus, 1965; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology,
1965; F. C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, 1962; R. M. Grant, Augustine to
Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the Roman World, 1970; F. Hahn, The
Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity, 1969, 68-135; J. N. D. Kelly,
Early Christian Creeds, 1972°, 1-29; J. D. Kingsbury, ‘““The Title ‘Kyrios’ in Matthew’s Gospel’,
JBL 94, 1975, 246-55; W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 1966; W. G. Kimmel, Promise and
Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, 1961? SBT 24; and The Theology of the New
Testament, 1974; R. Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror: Ideas of Conflict in the New Testament, 1954;
E. Lohmeyer, The Lord of the Temple: A Study of the Relation between Cult and Gospel, 1961;
R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, 1970, SBT Second Series 17,
120-47; R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi. Philippians ii. 5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the
Setting of Early Christian Worship, 1967; V. F. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, New
Testament Tools and Studies 5, 1963; A. Oepke, en, TDNT II 537-43; J. C. O’Neill, ““The Use
of KyRIos in the Book of Acts”, S/T 8, 1955, 155-74; O. Ploger, Theocracy and Eschatology, 1967;
519
LORD/LORD’s SUPPER
W. M. Ramsay, Zhe Church in the Roman Empire before 170, 1906; A. Richardson, An Introduction
to the Theology of the New Testament, 1958, 148, 153 f., 305; and The Political Christ, 1973; E.
Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 1960; E. Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches
1955; L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor, 1931; W. C. van Unnik, ‘Jesus: Ana-
thema or Kyrios (I Cor. 12:3)’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and the Spirit in the
New Testament. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, 1973, 113-26.
(b). D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’ Aquila. Premiére Publication intégrale du Texte des Fragments
du Dodécaprophéton, 1963; H. Bietenhard, Das tausendjahrige Reich, 19557; L. Goppelt, “‘Die
Herrschaft Christi und die Welt nach dem Neuen Testament”’, Lutherische Rundschau, 1967, 21 ff.;
J. Herrmann, Kyrios und Pneuma. Studien zur Christologie der paulinischen Hauptbriefe, 1961;
N. Hofer, ““Das Bekenntnis ‘Herr ist Jesus’ und das ‘Taufen auf den Namen Jesu’ ’’ 7ThQ 145, 1965,
1 ff.; E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5-11, Sitzungsberichte der Heidel-
berger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1927-28, 4. Abhandlung,
1928; and Christuskult und Kaiserkult, 1919; U. Luck, “‘Historische Fragen zum Verhaltnis von
kyrios und pneuma bei Paulus”, TLZ, 1960, 845 ff.; R. Rendtorff, ‘“‘El, Baal und Jahwe’’, ZAW
Neue Folge 37, 1966, 277 ff.; E. Schweizer, ‘“Der Glaube an Jesus, den ‘Herrn’ in seiner Entwick-
lung von den ersten Nachfolgern biz zur hellenistischen Gemeinde’, EvTh 17, 1957, 7 ff.; S.
Schulz, “‘Maranatha und Kyrios Jesus’, ZNW 53, 1962, 125 ff.; P. Vielhauer, ‘““Ein Weg zur
neutestamentlichen Christologie?’’, Aufsatze zum Neuen Testament, ThB 31, 1965, 141 ff.
Lord’s Supper
deinvoy (deipnon), a main meal, dinner, supper, banquet;
Kvpiakov odsinvoy (kyriakon deipnon), Lord’s supper;
| O&€invoyv
t pamela (trapeza), table; KAdaic tod dptov (klasis tou artou), breaking of bread.
cL 1. In the ancient religions eating and drinking were mostly formal meals, 1.e.
acts of public or private fellowship linked with the sacred (RGG? IV 605).
Families, clans and religious fellowships received a share in divine power through
the common meal, which represented their union with the deity. The origin of the
sacred character of the meal is connected with magic concepts, according to which
the divine is embodied in material things (animism; similar ideas also in canni-
balism, cf. RGG? III 1116). The thought that deity was contained in every plant
(Demeter-Kore) led on to the idea that the deity possessed a — life-giving power,
which was received directly by those who shared the meal. In short, there was
nothing which unites man and man, and man and God, more than eating and
drinking (cf. E.O. James, The Beginnings of Religion, [1948] 1958, 83-100; F. Bammel,
Das heilige Mahl im Glauben der Volker, 1950).
2. deipnon (from Homer on), in the sense of a cultic meal, was part of the living
vocabulary of Hellenistic religion, in which it played an important rdle. The
participant believed that he was sitting at the trapeza tou theou, the god’s table (cf.
1 Cor. 10:21, trapeza daimonion, “table of demons’’) and that through the meal
he entered into fellowship with the deity. He thus became a partner or sharer
koinonos (cf. 1 Cor. 10:20). The Oxyrhynchus Papyri in the 2nd cent. A.D. contain
the invitation: ““Chairemon invites you to eat [deipnésai] at the table of the Lord
Sarapis [Ayriou Sarapidos|”’ (P.Oxy. 1, 110). Sarapis is here represented as the host
and the participants in the cultic meal as his table companions (for further instances
of such invitations see P.Oxy. 14, 1755; 3, 523; cf. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos,
1970, 143 ff.; H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I, IT, HNT 9, 19494, 49 f.). Josephus
520
LORD’S SUPPER
tells of an invitation to the deipnon of Anubis in the temple of Isis at Rome (Ant.
18, 3, 4). “The underlying thought is that of communio, of the union of those who
eat with the divinity” (J. Behm, TDNT II 35).
oT |. The meal in the OT. The term deipnon does not play a significant réle in the
LXX. Until 4 Macc. 3:9 it occurs only in Dan. and translates Heb. patbag,
delicacies (1:8, 13, 15, 16) and /ehem, bread (5:1). The vb. deipneo occurs only in
Prov. 23:1; Dan. 11:27 and Tob. 7:8; 8:1.
Festivals and sacrifices in the OT are often connected with cultic meals and can
be described as eating before the Lord and rejoicing (Deut. 12:7) (—> Feast; >
Hunger, art. esthid; —-> Joy; — Sacrifice). Table-fellowship binds a man to -> God
and before God (Exod. 18:12; 24:11). A meal often played a part in the conclusion
of a secular —> covenant (Gen. 26:30; Jos. 9:14 f.), at which Yahweh was present
as an unseen guest. It was with a meal that Jacob and Laban sealed their peace
treaty (Gen. 31:46, 54), Moses, his father-in-law and the elders their association
(Exod. 18:12), Gaal and the Shechemites their conspiracy (Jdg. 9:26-41), and the
people their agreement with their elected king (1 Sam. 11:15; 1 Ki. 1:25, 41 ff.; cf.
1 Sam. 9:22 ff.). The covenant between Yahweh and Israel on Sinai was concluded
with a cultic meal for the elders with Yahweh (cf. G. Fohrer, RGG? IV 607). Such a
fellowship-meal not only made the participants brothers one of another, but also of
Yahweh (cf. the name Ahijah [Heb. **hiyah, **hiyahi], “Yahweh is my brother’’).
Table fellowship meant the granting of — forgiveness (2 Sam. 9:7; 2 Ki. 25:27-30;
Josephus, Ant. 19, 7:1), protection (Jdg. 19:15 ff.) and — peace (Gen. 43:25 ff.).
The breaking of table-fellowship was the most detestable of crimes (Jer. 41:1 f.;
Ps. 41:9 [MT 10]; cf. 1QH 5:23 f.; Mk. 14:18).
2. The Passover meal (—> Feast, art. pascha) originated in Israel’s nomadic
period. A one year old lamb or kid (Exod. 12:5) was killed by the head of the
household on 14 Nisan at sundown (Exod. 12:6), ““between dusk and dark”’ (NEB).
Its blood was smeared on the doorposts, its flesh roasted and eaten by the family
during the night of 14-15 Nisan (Exod. 12:8 f.). After Josiah’s reform (621 B.c.)
the killing of the Passover lambs and the Passover meal took place in Jerusalem
(Deut. 16:5-7; 2 Ki. 23:21-23). The Jewish Passover meal in the time of Jesus
recalled the sparing of the houses marked with the blood of the Passover lambs
and the redemption out of slavery in Egypt. At the same time the Passover meal
looked forward to redemption in the future, of which the redemption from Egypt
was the pattern (J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 1966*, 42 f., 56-62).
The messiah comes on Passover night. “‘On this night they were redeemed and they
will be redeemed,” says an old proverb (Mekilta Exod. 12:42).
3. (a) Table-fellowship. Joining in table-fellowship meant sharing in Yahweh’s
—> blessing. This was signified by the prayer at the beginning and the thanksgiving
at the end of the meal. The head of the household took the bread and spoke over
it the benediction on behalf of all those present (Ber. 6:1). Then he broke the bread
that had been blessed and gave each at the table a piece. In this way every partici-
pant in the meal received a share of the benediction. A benediction followed after
the meal. The head of the household took a cup of wine, the ‘“‘cup of blessing”’
(cf. 1 Cor. 10:16), and pronounced the prayer of thanksgiving on behalf of all
present (Ber. 7:3; 46a ff.; 50a). Then everyone drank from the cup of blessing, in
521
LORD’S SUPPER
order to receive a part of the benediction pronounced over the wine. The use of
wine at an ordinary meal was not obligatory, but a closing benediction was.
(b) The Passover liturgy. Even before the time of Christ the outlines of the
liturgy to be followed during the Passover meal had been laid down (Pes. 10:2-7;
cf. J. Jeremias, op. cit., 85 f.).
(i) Preliminary course. The head of the household pronounced the prayer of
sanctification (giddis), comprising the benediction for the festival and the first cup
(the giddis cup). The preliminary course (karpas), consisting of green herbs, bitter
herbs and a sauce of fruit juice was eaten without bread. The meal was brought in
but not yet eaten, the second cup was mixed with water and placed on the table,
but not yet drunk.
(ii) The Passover liturgy. The Passover service, in which the head of the house-
hold explained the special features of the Passover meal (Exod. 12:26) and pro-
claimed the outline of the story, the haggddah; the first part of the Passover Hallel
(Pss. 113 f.) was sung and the second cup (haggadah cup) was drunk.
(iii) The main meal. The head of the household pronounced a benediction over
the unleavened bread, which was distributed and the meal eaten which consisted
of the Passover lamb, mazzoth, bitter herbs (Exod. 12:8) and wine (optional).
After grace the third cup (cup of blessing) was drunk.
(iv) Conclusion. The second part of the Hallel (Pss. 115-118) was sung and a
benediction pronounced over the fourth cup (Hallel cup).
The interpreting of the special features of the Passover meal was a firmly-
established part of the Passover ritual. In the Passover service which preceded the
meal the Passover lamb, the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs (cf. Exod. 12:8)
were explained. Thus an old Aram. formula explaining the mazzoth runs: “Behold,
this is the bread of affliction” (G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 1929, 139; cf. Deut. 16:3).
4. The eschatological meal. Isa. 25:6-8 (cf. 65:13) refers to a bountiful feast
which Yahweh will provide “for all peoples’, when sorrow and death are things of
the past. This feast, with the attendant removal of ‘‘the veil that is spread over all
nations’’, has been linked closely with the Lord’s Supper, especially in its Lucan
setting, by P. E. Leonard (Luke’s Account of the Lord’s Supper, dissertation,
Manchester, 1976).
5. The common meal at Qumran. The cultic meal at Qumran was the daily main
meal of the community. A priest presided and pronounced the benediction over the
bread and the wine at the beginning of the meal (1QS 6:46). There is a reference
in 1QSa 2:17—21 to an eschatological meal with the messiah in which bread is eaten
and new wine drunk. There is an analogy here with the Christian celebration of a
meal, even if dependence of the one on the other cannot be proved and indeed is
improbable. (On the Essene meal see K. G. Kuhn, ““The Lord’s Supper and the
Communal Meal at Qumran’’, in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testa-
ment, 1958, 65-93; J. Jeremias, op. cit., 31-6.)
NT 1. The NT sources. The expression, the Lord’s Supper (kyriakon deipnon)
occurs only in 1 Cor. 11:20. In meaning it is closely related to the phrase the
“table of the Lord [trapeza kyriou]’ (1 Cor. 10:21). Both passages indicate that the
term — Lord (art. kyrios) is firmly established in the tradition and terminology of
the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:22; 11:27, 31 f.). The institution of the Lord’s Supper
522
LORD’S SUPPER
has been handed down to us in four forms (Mk. 14:22—25; Matt. 26:26—29; Lk.
22:15-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25). Many scholars are of the opinion that the differing
versions of the words of institution represent in each case the liturgical text en-
trusted to the writer by his own community (cf. J. Jeremias, op. cit., 106-37). The
words of institution, in the form in which we have them, therefore, belong to the
realm of liturgy and “‘behind each form is as it were a celebrating congregation for
whom it is intended” (G. Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 1969, 134).
(a) 1 Cor. 11:23-25 is, from the literary point of view, the oldest version, re-
producing the form of words current in the Christian community in Antioch,
which Paul found there in the mid-forties (Acts 11:26) ({F. F. Bruce] or more
probably at Damascus, where he first experienced Christian fellowship in the
mid-thirties [Acts 9:19; Gal. 1:17]) and which he traces back to Jesus, as a tradition
handed down by the church (1 Cor. 11:23). Matt.’s version is widely considered
to be an expanded form of that in Mk., and therefore has no independent value
as a source in a discussion of the original form. A number of MSS of Lk. omit
vv. 19b, 20 (D, some Old Lat., Old Syr.; on the text see Metzger, 173-77; J.
Jeremias, op. cit., 139-59). The majority of scholars regard the so-called ‘‘short
text”’ of Lk. (without vv. 19b, 20) as secondary, holding that it arose either on
the grounds of discipline (to protect the Lord’s Supper from profanation, J.
Jeremias, ibid.), or to avoid mentioning the second cup (v. 17, 20; cf. H. Schiirmann,
Der Einsetzungsbericht, Lk. 22, 19-20, NTAbkh 20, 4, 1955, 35 ff.). A comparison
with Paul and Mk. reveals that the original longer text (Lk. 22:15—20) agrees
essentially in vv. 19b, 20 with 1 Cor. 11:24 f., and in v. 19a (as far as to soma mou,
‘“‘my body’’) and in the concluding formula of v. 20c (to hyper hymon ekchynno-
menon, “‘which is shed for you’’) with Mk. 14:22, 24. The text of Lk., therefore,
on one hand betrays the influence of the Marcan version, and on the other of a text
very closely related to, but older than, that of 1 Cor. 11:23-—25. So we are left with
Mk. 14:22-25 and 1 Cor. 11:23—25 as the oldest forms of the tradition.
(b) In addition to the four-fold record of the Lord’s Supper we must take into
consideration: (i) 1 Cor. 10:16, a pre-Pauline commentary on the Lord’s Supper;
(ii) 1 Cor. 11:26, an explanatory comment by Paul; (i) 1 Cor. 11:27 f.; 16:20,
22; Rev. 22:17—-21, parts (or references to parts) of the introductory liturgy to the
primitive Christian celebration of the Lord’s Supper; (iv) Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11,
accounts of the daily celebration of the Lord’s Supper (breaking of bread) in the
primitive church; (v) Jn. 6:51—58 with the Johannine version of the saying about
the bread: ‘‘and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh”’
(6:51c).
2. The historical roots. (a) The Lord’s Supper in the primitive church was cer-
tainly not just the continuation of the disciples’ daily table-fellowship with the
earthly Jesus. But it is related to the accounts of Jesus’ table-fellowship with his
disciples, with tax-collectors and sinners (Matt. 9:9-13; Mk. 2:13-17; Lk. 5:27-
32), and to the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand (Matt. 14:13-21; Mk.
6:30-44; Lk. 9:10-17; Jn. 6:1-13) and the four thousand (Matt. 15:32-39; Mk.
8:1-10; — Hunger, art. esthid). ““By coming to them and eating and drinking with
them, Jesus brought them the merciful presence of God, the forgiveness of sins.
This fellowship with the friend of tax collectors and sinners keeps the Christian
community firm, by... renewing for it the consolation of forgiveness” (E. Lohse,
523
LORD’S SUPPER
Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi, 1964, 57). These meals with tax-
collectors and the granting of table-fellowship to the despised (Lk. 15:1 f.; 19:5 f.)
are kerygmatic parabolic actions, Jesus’ word of forgiveness coming to life in
events (J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 1963", 227 ff.).
(b) The Lord’s Supper in the primitive church, with its eschatological joy at
present table-fellowship with the exalted Jesus, is, however, equally related to the
table-fellowship of the risen Jesus with his disciples after Easter. According to O.
Cullmann, the church’s celebration of eschatological meals has real roots in the
meals that took place on the occasion of Jesus’ appearances after Easter (Acts
10:41; Lk. 24:30 f., 35, 43; Jn. 21:13; cf. Early Christian Worship, 1953, 14 ff.;
The Christology of the New Testament, 1963", 212). Though the connection cannot
be denied, it seems that Cullmann has ascribed to the breaking of bread at the
Easter appearances too great an influence upon the emergence of the Lord’s Supper
in the primitive church. For the expression, to break bread (kla6 ton arton or klasis
tou artou), occurs only in Lk. 24:30, 35 (cf. also Jn. 21:13), and the appearances of
the risen Jesus were, as the NT itself recognizes, unique occurrences and as such
were limited to the original witnesses (1 Cor. 15:5 ff.). When the risen Jesus ate
and drank with his disciples at his appearances after Easter, he was doing something
extraordinary, which could not be repeated in the same manner nor in any way
continued.
The table-fellowship of the earthly Jesus and of the risen Christ with his disciples
(—> Hunger, art. pind) are accordingly factors which are related to the basic motives
behind Jesus’ last meal. The regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the primi-
tive church arose from all these taken together. The Lord’s Supper in the church
after Easter has a strong eschatological element (cf. Mk. 14:25). Nevertheless, the
retrospective look at Jesus’ saving death (Mk. 14:22-25) was an essential consti-
tuent of the Lord’s Supper from the first (P. Vielhauer, Aufsdtze zum Neuen
Testament, 1965, 159 f.).
3. The original form of the words of institution. (a) There is a general consensus
of agreement on the following points:
(i) Mk. 14:22-25 and 1 Cor. 11:23-25 are the two oldest forms of the words of
institution. (11) One must assume an original Aram. (or Heb.) form, which has not
been preserved and which lies behind both of the oldest forms of the text.
In Mk. the saying about the bread runs, ‘Take; this is my body [/abete, touto
estin to soma mou)” (14:22); the saying about the cup, “‘This is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many [touto estin to haima mou tés diathékés to
ekchynnomenon hyper pollon]|’ (14:24). In Paul the saying about the bread runs,
“This is my body for you [touto mou estin to soma to hyper hymon]” (1 Cor. 11:24),
and the saying about the cup, ‘“‘This cup is the new covenant by my blood [touto to
potérion hé kainé diathéké estin en to emo haimati]” (1 Cor. 11:25).
(b) One can deduce from Mk., an original form, “‘This is my body, this is my
shed blood (i.e. my dying) for [the] many” (Mk. 14:22c, 24). K. G. Kuhn (‘Uber
den urspriinglichen Sinn des Abendmahls”, EvTh 11/12, 1950-51, 513 ff.), E.
Lohse (Martyrer und Gottesknecht, 1955, 122 ff.; and op. cit., 54 ff.) and others
have rightly decided for this possibility. On the other side, G. Bornkamm (op. cit.,
134 ff.), E. Schweizer (see bibliography), and others defend the originality of the
Pauline-Lucan words of institution. They maintain that this form has in its narrative
524
LORD’S SUPPER
framework the older comment that the cup was not shared until after they had
eaten; in Mk. body and blood are complementary terms; the original asymmetry
of the Pauline-Lucan version of the sayings about the bread and the cup has been
harmonized in the Marcan form on liturgical grounds, and even on grounds of
content, for the parallelism of body and blood reveals the questionable idea of the
body and blood of Christ as the two parts of the crucified Lord, an idea arising
from the elements which represent the body and the blood.
The following 6 objections to this argument have been raised:
(i) Even in the original pre-Marcan form “body” and “‘blood”’ (séma and haima)
do not represent a commonly linked pair of terms (E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottes-
knecht, 125). Flesh and blood (sarx and haima; cf. Heb. 2:14) appear more often
as complementary terms. In the pre-Marcan explanatory saying, therefore, we
have a pair of terms which are not complementary, either anthropologically or
cultically.
(ii) The term — “‘blood”’ (14:24) in the pre-Marcan formula must not be isolated
and simply made a parallel to — “‘body” (14:22), because in Mk. 14:24 “‘my blood
shed [to haima mou to ekchynnomenon]” taken in the context of the OT and Jewish
forms of expression, denoted violent death (E. Lohse, J. Behm, F. Hahn; — Blood).
(iii) In the pre-Marcan form, therefore, it is not body and blood that are related
to one another, but the non-parallel phrases, ““my body” (the saying about the
bread) and “‘my dying for [the] many” (the saying about the cup). In other words,
each part of the pre-Marcan saying is self-contained and can be explained without
reference to the parallel phrase.
(iv) It was only due to the inclusion of the words “of the covehant’’, alluding
to Exod. 24:8, that “blood” in Mk. became cultically complementary to “body”,
and even the participle “‘shed’’ only received cultic significance (a combined allu-
sion to the atonement and to the covenant) at this point; whereupon the possibility
of misunderstanding in the Marcan saying about the cup was removed in the
Pauline-Lucan form by associating the allusion to the atonement with the saying
about the bread, so that the idea of the covenant here only qualifies the saying
about the cup.
(v) The phrase ‘“‘shed for [the] many’ (Mk. 14:24b) does not represent any
expansion of or addition to the Hellenistic phrase “‘my blood of the covenant’’
(Mk. 14:24a; cf. W. Marxsen, “Der Ursprung des Abendmahls”’, EvTh 12, 1952-
53, 299). For on linguistic grounds Mk. 14:24b is an Aramaism (J. Jeremias,
op. cit., 178 ff.; K. G. Kuhn, op. cit., 513 ff.). Moreover, the expression haima
ekchynnesthai (to shed blood) is analogous to other turns of phrase like “‘to pour
out one’s soul’’ (Isa. 53:12), “to give one’s soul” (Mk. 10:45b), which are para-
phrases of the idea of dying, sacrifice or violent death (cf. Gen. 4:10 f.; 9:6; Deut.
19:10; 2 Ki. 21:16; Ps. 106:38; Jer. 7:6; Matt. 23:35).
(vi) Therefore the Pauline-Lucan form assumes the Marcan version of the
explanatory words and can only be understood as a development of them. Since
the phrase in Paul’s account “by my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25) does not appear in Jer.
31:31 ff., the formula is not to be understood primarily in terms of Jer.; it receives
its significance which speaks of “‘the blood of the covenant” from Exod. 24:8. In
other words, the Pauline form of the words of institution can only be explained on
the basis of the older Marcan form of the words of institution, based on Exod.
525
LORD’S SUPPER
24:8, and on a process of theological reflection moving from Exod. 24:8 to Jer.
31:31 ff. This is comparable with the development from the Marcan form [14:24]
which is orientated towards Exod. 24:8 to that in Matt. [26:29] which reflects Jer.
31 :34b.
(c) The originality of the pre-Marcan form follows then from: (i) a wealth of
Semitisms (Aramaisms) of which only few recur in Paul; (ii) the considerable
asymmetry which results from the pre-Marcan formulations saying about the
bread not having any theological interpretation and the reference to the atone-
ment’s being attached only to the saying about the cup; (iii) the imbalance of ‘“‘my
body’’/‘‘my dying for [the] many”’; (iv) the fact that the Pauline-Lucan form can be
derived, according to the principles governing the handing down of tradition,
from the Marcan, but the reverse process is unthinkable; and finally (v) the fact
that the sayings about the bread and the cup, in the pre-Marcan original form,
each constitute a complete saying which does not first require the parallel saying in
order to be understood. This presupposes, therefore, that the sayings about the
bread and the cup were originally separated by a whole meal. One must conclude,
therefore, “‘that in the oral tradition of the earliest times there was a shorter version’”’
(E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottesknecht, 124) which may be stated: “This is my body,
this is my dying for [the] many.”
4. The setting of the words of institution. The account of the institution, which
stems from liturgical tradition, appears in the NT in the setting of the oldest
account of the passion, the Passover meal and the liturgy of the primitive church.
Therefore, we must investigate the significance of this setting for the understanding
of the words of institution.
(a) The Lord’s Supper in the setting of the oldest account of the passion.
(i) The striking fact that the Gospel of Jn. does not coincide with the Synoptics
until the account of the Passion demonstrates that the passion narrative was a self-
contained and very old traditional compilation. Systematic comparison of the
Johannine and Synoptic passion narratives reveals that, from Judas’s betrayal
onwards, Jn. agrees with the Synoptics even in the order of his material, viz.
betrayal (Mk. 14:10 f.; Jn. 13:2), prophecy of the betrayal and the meal (Mk.
14:18-25; Jn. 13:1-30). Jn. does not give an account of the Last Supper but has
sayings about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in 6:51 ff., and also des-
cribes the arrest (Mk. 14:32 ff.; Jn. 18:2-11). The underlying oldest passion
narrative, therefore, began with Judas’s betrayal, then recounted the prophecy of
the betrayal and the institution of the Lord’s Supper and finally depicted the arrest,
the trial before the Sanhedrin, the judgment by Pilate, the crucifixion and resurrec-
tion (empty tomb). If, at a very early stage, the passion narrative began with the
betrayal, the oldest summaries of the passion agree with this (Mk. 9:31; 8:31;
10:33 f.), for they never mention any event of the passion earlier than Judas’s
betrayal (J. Jeremias op. cit., 89-105; E. Lohse, Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens
Jesu Christi, 1964, 23 f.). The oldest account of the passion embraces, therefore,
the oldest summary of the passion (Mk. 9:31).
(ii) The theme of the passion summaries (cf. especially Mk. 9:31) and of the
passion narrative that embraces them (Mk. 14:10 f., 18, 21, 44; 15:1, 10, 15) which
represents the setting of the original form of the Lord’s Supper sayings, is, accord-
ingly, the representative delivering up of the Son of man by God. It is accomplished
526
LORD’S SUPPER
through Judas’s betrayal, Jesus’ arrest and his violent death (Mk. 9:31; 14:21; cf.
14:41). In so far as the passion summaries and the oldest passion narrative go back
to the primitive Palestinian church, this favours the conclusion that the pre-Marcan
original form of the words of institution (and not first the Marcan version) also
stood within this oldest passion narrative.
If that is so, the theme of the setting of the pre-Marcan words of institution casts
light on their meaning. It is not the two elements representing body and blood that
stand at the heart of the pre-Marcan original of the old passion summaries (Mk.
9:31, etc.), and of the oldest passion narrative which embraces them (14:21, cf.
14:41), but the violent death (““my blood shed’’) of the One given up by God
vicariously for the many.
(iii) This conclusion is supported by the agreement of the contents of the Marcan
setting and the Pauline introductory formula: “‘the Lord Jesus [ho kyrios Iésous|
on the night when he was delivered up” (1 Cor. 11:23). Comparison with the
liturgical introduction to the Pauline outline of the Lord’s Supper establishes not
only that the nocturnal betrayal by Judas belonged to the passion narrative at an
early date (J. Jeremias, op. cit., 94 ff.) and that the Son of man title (Mk. 14:21)
corresponds to the Pauline “‘Ayrios Jesus” (the call maranatha refers to the coming
of the Son of man; cf. W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 1966, 99-107, 175).
It also shows that paradidomai (to be delivered up) in the passion narrative is to be
understood in the context of the salvation history of God, who “gave up his Son
for us all (Rom. 8:32; cf. 4:25). ... Thus it was not as an expression of a police
measure or a villainous deed of men’ (G. Bornkamm, op. cit., 132). (On the call
—> Present, art. maranatha.)
This means, however, that the setting of the pre-Marcan words of institution in
the Lord’s Supper, with its theme of the substitutionary delivering up by God of the
Son of man, accomplished through the ungodly actions of men, corresponds
exactly to the liturgical introduction to the words of institution in Paul’s account
of the Lord’s Supper and their theme of God’s delivering up for us in salvation
history of the Ayrios Jesus.
(b) The Lord’s Supper in the setting of the Passover meal. (1) The Synoptic
narratives agree that Jesus’ Last Supper was a Passover meal (Matt. 26:17 ff.;
Mk. 14:12, 14, 16; Lk. 22:7, 11, 12, 15). According to them, Jesus was crucified
on the Day of Passover (15 Nisan). Execution on the day of such a high festival
was not impossible historically, for in cases of very serious crime execution was to
be carried out “‘at the feast’? (Deut. 17:13; 21:21) in the sight of all the people, i.e.
on 15 Nisan (H. Conzelmann, RGG? III 626; J. Jeremias, op. cit., 53). According
to Jn., when Jesus was accused before Pilate, the Passover lambs had not yet been
eaten (Jn. 18:28). Jesus’ crucifixion took place on 14 Nisan, the Preparation for the
Passover (Jn. 19:14). Nevertheless, the balance of probability seems to lie with the
Synoptic presentation (W. Marxsen EKL I 4), for Jn. fixes the moment of Jesus’
death as the time when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple
and clearly wants to make his chronology a comment on the meaning of Jesus’
death, i.e. Jesus died as the true Passover lamb (Jn. 1:29; 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46,
Num. 9:12; 1 Cor. 5:7). ({Ed.] For discussions of the complex question of the
chronological schemes employed by the evangelists see especially the works by
Jaubert, Ogg, and Ruckstuhl listed in the bibliography.) Since the Lord’s Supper,
a21
LORD’S SUPPER
celebrated daily or weekly from the beginning, had no reference to the Passover as
an annual feast, an original connection of the Passover meal and the Lord’s Supper
is more likely than a development in the opposite direction (K. G. Kuhn, op. cit.,
513 ff.; W. Marxsen, ibid.).
({F. F. Bruce] The chronological question is best solved if the combined Synoptic
and Johannine evidence be interpreted as indicating that the official Passover meal
was indeed eaten on the Friday evening, as John implies [Jn. 18:28; 19:14], but
that Jesus, for his own good reasons, kept the Passover with his disciples the pre-
ceding evening, “‘before the [official] feast of the Passover”’ [Jn. 13:1]. The official
feast was regulated by the temple calendar, but there were groups in Israel which
did not accept this calendar. One of these was the Qumran community, which
followed the solar calendar of the book of Jubilees, but the view of A. Jaubert
[The Date of the Last Supper, 1965], that Jesus kept the Passover according to this
calendar, has not been adequately established. More probably Jesus did not regu-
late his observance on this occasion by any current calendar, but since he knew
that he would not be alive on the Friday evening, and ‘earnestly desired to eat
this passover’’ with his disciples before he suffered [Lk. 22:15], he resolved to eat
it with them twenty-four hours earlier. Provision was made in the OT for the
observance of the Passover on another day than the normal one, in a case of
necessity [cf. Num. 9:10 f.; 2 Chr. 30:2 f., 13, 15]; and the Lord of the sabbath
was also Lord of the Passover. If the meal was eaten a day earlier than the official
date, it must have been eaten without a lamb, since in post-exilic times paschal lambs
were slaughtered only by the priests in the temple at the appointed time. But
wherever the Passover was commemorated beyond the environs of Jerusalem
before A.D. 70, and throughout the whole world since A.p. 70, it has had to be
commemorated without the paschal lamb. It is unnecessary to suppose with M.
Black [The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 1961, 201] that Judas took the “‘morsel’’
[Jn. 13:26, 30] to the chief priests as “evidence ... that an illegal feast had been
celebrated”’.)
(ii) Not merely the setting of the oldest passion narrative suggests that Jesus’
last meal took place within the framework of a Passover meal, but also the liturgical
words of institution themselves.
The setting in which Jesus held his last Supper was Jerusalem and not Bethany
to which he normally went each night (Matt. 21:17 par. Mk. 11:11; Mk. 11:19;
Matt. 26:6 par. Mk. 14:3). He did not, therefore, leave the Holy City. It was a rule
that the Passover lamb had to be eaten within the city limits of Jerusalem.
Jesus’ Last Supper closed with a hymn of praise (Matt. 26:30 par. Mk. 14:26),
i.e. with the second half of the Hallel (Pss. 115-118), which was sung at the close
of the Passover meal.
The liturgical account of the institution states that Jesus’ Last Supper was held
during the night (1 Cor. 11:23; Matt. 26:20; Mk. 14:17; cf. Lk. 22:14), whereas
the normal main meal took place in the late afternoon. The Passover meal, however,
was from the beginning eaten at night, and its celebration was only permitted then.
Since the indication of time in | Cor. | 1:23 (in contrast to the setting in Mk. 14:17,
26) belongs to the old liturgical formula (G. Bornkamm, op. cit., 137 ff.; J. Jeremias,
op. cit., 44 ff., 95, n. 5), the liturgical tradition itself supports the idea that Jesus’
Last Supper took place within the setting of a Passover meal.
528
LORD’S SUPPER
Finally, the words of institution within the supper support the idea that a Pass-
over meal was the setting for Jesus’ Last Supper. ““The most likely way of under-
standing the fact that the words of institution were spoken is evidence that Jesus’
words were said within the setting of a Passover meal. But the explanation of the
elements is part of the Passover service, not of the benediction before or after the
meal. Jesus, however, pronounced the words of institution at the distribution of the
bread and wine’ (E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottesknecht, 123). But here it must be
noted that the analogy between the explanatory words of the Jewish Passover meal
and those of Jesus is only formal, and not a material one. The setting of the Jewish
Passover gave rise to Jesus’ explanatory words but it does not explain them.
(iii) The novel element is the fact that Jesus is not said to have explained the
special features of the Passover (the lamb, the unleavened bread and the bitter
herbs), but that he is said to have explained — bread and — wine as such, i.e. those
elements which appeared at every other meal. To this must be added the fact that
Jesus’ explanatory words were connected with the benediction before and after the
meal. The distribution of the blessed bread and wine after the blessing meant
giving a share in the blessing pronounced over the bread and the cup. On this basis
one can explain, on the one hand, the linking of the words of institution with the
blessing before and after the main meal and, on the other hand, the connection of
the explanation with the distribution (J. Jeremias, op. cit., 84-88).
(c) The words of institution and parabolic actions. Jesus’ explanation of the
elements of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper differed finally from the explana-
tion of the special features of the Jewish Passover meal in that the distribution of
the bread and wine by Jesus represents a (prophetic) parabolic action (J. Jeremias,
op. cit., 204 ff.; 212; W. Marxsen, EKL I 5), through which the disciples partici-
pated in Jesus’ death. Two things are, however, essential to parabolic actions: that
they become real events and that their constituent parts are described. The explana-
tion is an established part of OT parabolic actions (cf. Ezek. 5:5 “this is Jerusa-
lem’’; Ezek. 12:11 “I am a sign for you”; cf. H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia,
1974; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, I, Hermeneia, 1976).
(d) The Lord’s Supper and the Passover meal. Jesus’ Last Supper, therefore,
was in all probability a Passover meal. He spoke the words of institution in the
setting of his last celebration of the Passover and “‘clearly referred to many features
of the feast, assimilating some and changing others.... When, as head of the
household, he passed round the bread before the main meal, he accompanied it
with a word of explanation, and likewise, later, the cup’ (W. Marxsen, EKL IJ 4).
The cup referred to was the third cup “‘after supper” (Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25),
the ‘“‘cup of blessing’ (1 Cor. 10:16) of the Passover feast. That this is above all
explanation, not of actions but of the food, is made clear only by the setting of the
Jewish Passover ritual. So if the Synoptic gospels are historically correct in placing
the words of institution in the setting of the Passover, this conclusion in no way
determines the sense of the words of institution and the significance of the Lord’s
Supper (K. G. Kuhn).
5. The Lord’s Supper and the liturgy of the primitive church. The practical setting
of the words of institution in the Lord’s Supper is the celebration of the meal in the
Palestinian and Hellenistic primitive church.
(a) Effects of the liturgical use. The liturgical use of the words of institution
529
LORD’S SUPPER
becomes apparent in the explicit command to repeat the act (Lk. 22:19), and its
doubling for the sake of liturgical parallelism (1 Cor. 11:24, 25), in the adding of
imperatives like “eat’’, “‘drink” (Matt. 26:26 f.), in the replacement of the third
person “‘for the many” (Mk. 14:24) by the second person “‘for you”’ (Lk. 22:20),
which narrows down the universal reference of the saying about the cup (Jesus’
substitutionary death for the many) to a formula of distribution, in the avoidance
of Aramaisms and Semitisms, which were incomprehensible to Gentile Christians,
and not least in the disappearance of the historical features of the Passover meal,
which were incompatible with the liturgy of the primitive church and the regular
celebration of the Lord’s Supper (cf. J. Jeremias, TDNT VI 543; — All, Many, art.
polloi).
(i) In Acts 2:42 a liturgy of primitive Christian worship is described (J. Jeremias,
The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 118 ff.). After teaching, in place of which a letter
could be read, and a common meal (koinonia), there followed closely the Lord’s
Supper (klasis tou artou, “‘breaking of bread’’), which was concluded with psalms
and prayers (proseuchai). The liturgical development is visible in the fact that the
sayings over the bread and the cup are no longer, as in the Pauline version (1 Cor.
11:25 “after supper’’; cf. Lk. 22:20), separated by a whole meal, but that the meal
proper precedes the Lord’s Supper which is therefore self-contained (cf. the absence
of the phrase “after supper’ in Mk. and Matt.). The separation of the meal from
the Lord’s Supper is also assumed in | Cor. 11. It is here that the direct cause of
the Corinthian abuses lies.
(ii) Parts of the introductory liturgy to the celebration of the primitive Christian
meal are to be found in 1 Cor. 11:26 ff.; 16:20-22; and Rev. 22:17-21. Paul
concludes | Cor. with a series of liturgical phrases — the invitation to the holy
kiss, the anathema against those who do not love the Lord, and the Maranatha
(1 Cor. 16:20-—22)-— which originate in the introductory liturgy to the Lord’s
Supper which will have followed closely on the reading of the apostle’s letter to the
assembled congregation and on the holy kiss (1 Cor. 16:20; Rom. 16:16; cf. G.
Bornkamm, op. cit., 147 ff.). The anathema at the beginning of the celebration of
the meal excluded the unworthy from the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 16:22a). To
strengthen this there followed the Maranatha (1 Cor. 16:22b), which called upon the
kyrios to be present (“Our Lord, come!’’; cf. Rev. 22:20). Even if the church with
this call, ““Our Lord, come!” was praying for the Lord’s eschatological coming, this
did not exclude the presence of the exalted Lord at the Lord’s Supper, but rather
assumed it (P. Vielhauer, Aufsdtze zum Neuen Testament, 159 f., 175; K. G. Kuhn,
maranatha, TDNT IV 466-73). The achri hou elthé (‘until he comes’’) of 1 Cor.
11:26 clearly reflects the Maranatha of the Lord’s Supper liturgy (J. Schniewind,
TDNT I 72 n. 25; G. Bornkamm, op. cit., 148), and probably represents a re-
modelling of this cry. Similar phrases from the introductory liturgy occur in Rev.
22:17—21 (E. Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT 16, 1970, ad loc.)
and in Did. 10:6, where the use in a Hellenistic tradition of the Aramaic invocation
Maranatha confirms its primary eucharistic setting. The holy kiss, the formulae
of threat and exclusion and the invocations of the coming and present kyrios are
thus the essential elements of the introductory liturgy of the Lord’s Supper.
(b) Pre-liturgical elements in the tradition of the Lord’s Supper. The tradition
of the words of institution is not, as it stands, simply a historical account but a
530
LORD’S SUPPER
liturgical text, which mentions only the points which are essential for the celebration
of the Lord’s Supper in the church. Nevertheless, the tradition of the institution
of the Lord’s Supper implies a pre-liturgical stage in the tradition which could not
be fully assimilated into the liturgy itself.
(i) The historically probable information given by the Synoptics, which describes
Jesus’ Last Supper as a Passover meal, diverges from the rite of the primitive church,
for there is not the slightest evidence that the Lord’s Supper was ever celebrated
as a Passover, only once a year (J. Jeremias, op. cit., 66; W. Marxsen, EKL I 4).
Rather, the original Passover motifs were removed in the light of the regular cele-
bration of the Lord’s Supper. In primitive Christian usage, therefore, there is no
ground for a subsequent interpretation of the Lord’s Supper as a Passover meal
(K. G. Kuhn, Ev7h 11/12, 1950-51, 522).
(ii) While in Mk. the eschatological perspective is included in the words of
institution (14:25), in Lk. it occurs before them (Lk. 22:18) and in Paul an echo of
it is heard in his own explanatory phrase, achri hou elthé “‘until he comes”’ (1 Cor.
11:26), which may also imply an assurance of the fulfilment of this hope (cf. O.
Hofius, “‘Bis dass er kommt,” NTS 14, 1967-68, 439 ff.). It is no accident that the
eschatological perspective (Mk. 14:25) should no longer appear in direct associa-
tion with the words of institution, either in Lk. or Paul. Since it had moved, as
1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20; and Did. 10:6 attest, into the introductory liturgy,
its continuing position after the words of institution (Mk. 14:25) did not fit very
well into the liturgical formulation of the Lord’s Supper (G. Bornkamm, op. cit.,
151; F. Hahn, EvTh 27, 1967, 340). In Did. 10:5 the congregation celebrating the
meal prays that God will perfect the church and gather it into the — kingdom; in
Did. 10:6 there follow invocations referring to the parousia, and the Maranatha
(— Present, art. maranatha). The placing of the eschatological perspective in the
Marcan tradition after the words of institution indicates a stage which does not
correspond to the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper in the primitive church. It should
therefore be accepted as original.
(iii) While Mk. and Matt. associate the identification of the traitor with the
preliminary course (Matt. 26:20—-25; Mk. 14:17-21) in Lk. the prophecy of the
betrayal (Lk. 22:21—23) follows on the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Lk.
22:15—20). Here the Lucan order is probably older and indicates a preliturgical
stage; placing the identification of the traitor first not only shows theological
reflection (the traitor must not participate in the Lord’s Supper), but also liturgical
influence, i.e. the order in Mk. corresponds to the formulae of threat and exclusion
at the beginning of the primitive Christian Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27;
16:20a; Did. 10:6).
The tradition of the words of institution, therefore, certainly reflects the Lord’s
Supper liturgy of the primitive church, but it equally points back to a pre-liturgical
stage in the tradition.
6. The principal theological ideas of the Lord’s Supper. A theological interpreta-
tion must begin with the original form of the words of institution. From there
follows the process of development in the history of the tradition. Finally we must
consider the main theological ideas which arise in connection with it.
(a) The original form. (i) To understand the saying about the bread it is import-
ant to establish the Aram. equivalent of séma (— body). J. Jeremias posits behind
531
LORD’S SUPPER
the Gk. s6ma/haima (body/blood) the Aram. bisra’/d’ma@ (flesh/blood). His transla-
tion is determined by the consideration that ‘‘flesh” and ‘“‘blood”’ are frequently
used as a complementary pair in sacrificial language. Hence, he concludes that,
when Jesus spoke of body and blood, he was referring to the flesh and blood of the
Passover — lamb and thereby described himself as the true Passover lamb. But
since “‘body and blood” was not a current pair of complementary terms (E. Lohse,
Martyrer und Gottesknecht, 124f.), the original form of the words of institution
did not connect “‘body” and “‘blood”’, but “‘my body” and “‘my dying for [the]
many’’. Since there is in fact no record that Jesus ever referred to himself as the
Passover lamb, the Aram. equivalent for séma should probably be gupda’ (“‘body’”’,
““self’’, “I’?; cf. J. Behm, TDNT III 736; G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 1929, 142; E.
Schweizer, 7DNT VIII 1059). The words spoken at the distribution of the bread,
“this is my body” (Mk. 14:22c), mean therefore: This is myself; with this bread
I am giving myself. If Jesus, then, explained the distribution of the broken bread
with the words “‘this is myself”’ (a parabolic action), it means that as the disciples
received the bread they received a share in Jesus’ surrender of himself.
(11) This self-surrender of Jesus, already expressed in the words over the bread,
was included in the words over the cup, “‘this is my blood shed for [the] many”
(Mk. 14:24b). There are frequent references to the shedding of — blood in the
OT (cf. Gen. 9:6 etc.), in Rabbinic Judaism (examples in Dalman, op. cit., 159 f.)
and in the NT (cf. Matt. 23:25 etc.), whenever the subject is violent death or the
surrender of life. The oldest version of the saying about the cup therefore means
that Jesus’ blood is shed, 1.e. his life is surrendered. “This is my dying for [the]
many’’, therefore, like Mk. 10:45 and 1 Cor. 15:3, interprets the death of Jesus
in the context of Isa. 53:11 f. as a substitutionary, atoning death, which includes
the universal ‘‘[the] many’’. Jesus’ self-surrender (the saying over the bread) is his
substitutionary death for the many (the saying over the cup). The fact that the
Lord’s Supper was a (prophetic) parabolic action has the following consequence. In
the distribution of the broken bread and the red wine the reality which they
represent occurs and is repeated. The disciples received a share in Jesus’ vicarious
self-surrender for the many which was accomplished in the surrender of his life.
(iii) The eschatological perspective (Mk. 14:25) gave the Lord’s Supper a future
reference. As Jesus, by the distribution of the bread and wine, took his disciples
into communion with himself and into participation in the universal atoning
power of his death, he thereby placed them already within the sphere of the coming
of the reign of God (— Kingdom). In a solemn declaration of his will, in the form
of an oath, Jesus promised the consummation of salvation and assured his disciples
that this would be his last meal with them before the meal at the consummation.
His substitutionary atoning death for the universal “‘many’’, in which the disciples
participated in the Lord’s Supper, also made them participants in the sovereignty
of God breaking in among men. When this had been fully realized, Jesus would
once again, as head of the household, break the blessed bread for his people and
pass round the cup of blessing (J. Jeremias, op. cit., 233 ff.; for the eschatological
meal cf. e.g. Isa. 25:6; 65:13; Eth.Enoch 62:14).
(b) The development in the history of the tradition. When we turn to the form
the tradition takes in the successive strata of the NT, we get the following picture.
(i) Mark. Since the phrase “‘my blood of ri covenant” (14:24) is supposed to be
532
LORD’S SUPPER
impossible in Aram., the Marcan version of these words, “this is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for [the] many” (14:24), has been thought to
belong in the realm of Hellenistic Jewish Christianity. But, since the — covenant
is mentioned in all the versions of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper (Mk., Matt.,
Paul, Lk.), it must be very early. The words of institution in the Lord’s Supper
were linked with the concept of the covenant. The self-surrender of Jesus (explicit
in the original form) as a substitutionary death for the many now underwent closer
definition through the covenant concept. The phrase “‘blood of the covenant”’
echoes the words of Exod. 24:8 LXX (cf. Zech. 9:11; Heb. 9:20; 10:29; 13:20),
and makes a typological reference to the blood of the covenant sprinkled at Sinai.
As the covenant on Sinai was then confirmed with the blood of sacrificial animals,
the conclusion of the new covenant is now made effective through the blood of
Jesus. Not only was a correspondence intended, however, but also a development.
The sacrifice that was offered on Sinai to confirm the covenant long ago had no
ultimate, atoning, sin-erasing power (Exod. 24:3-8). The substitutionary death
of Christ, on the contrary, is superior to all the sacrifices of the old covenant.
His death inaugurates the eschatological order or covenant of salvation (E. Lohse,
Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi, 1964, 56).
(ii) The additions in the version handed down in Matt. may be explained by
liturgical practice. They are the invitation “eat” (Matt. 26:26), the re-writing of the
Marcan statement, “‘and they all drank of it” (Mk. 14:23); which comes, remark-
ably, before the words of institution over the cup, as an imperative (Matt. 26:27b)
and the expansion of the conclusion of the words over the cup to “‘for the forgive-
ness of sins’ (Matt. 26:28b), a formula perhaps originating in the baptismal liturgy
(Mk. 1:4; cf. Matt. 3:6; Acts 2:38; J. Jeremias, op. cit., 173; cf. E. Schweizer,
RGG? I 13). Moreover, the Matthaean form, with the epexegetic addition eis
aphesin hamartion, “‘for the forgiveness of sins’’, is also evidence of a theological
interpretation developing from Exod. 24:8 to Jer. 31 :31—34. The covenant which is
brought into effect, like the Sinai covenant, by the blood of Jesus, but which at the
same time is superior to the Sinai covenant because of the substitutionary death of
Christ (Mk.), is a covenant of the —> forgiveness of — sins (Matt.). The fellowship
with God established by Jesus’ death, in which the coming rule of God dawns,
is identical with the forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:34b). Matt., therefore, gives an
interpretation of the order of salvation established in Jesus’ death as the gift of
the forgiveness of sins. The Lord’s Supper is a present expression of that forgiveness.
(iii) The Pauline version reveals a stage of advancing Gk. influence in the avoid-
ance of Semitisms and of liturgical formulation (the command to repeat is doubled;
for anamnésis > Remember, art. mimnéskomai). In it the statement about atone-
ment was associated with the words over the bread (‘“‘this is my body for you’’),
while the covenant idea qualified only the words over the cup. This covenant is
described as the ‘“‘new’’ covenant, and is thus understood as the fulfilment of the
prophetic promise of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31 ff.). It may be paraphrased:
This cup is the new covenant on the basis of my blood (1 Cor. 11:25). When they
drink from the cup, those who celebrate the Lord’s Supper participate in the new
order of salvation, founded by God in Christ’s death. The church thus experiences
the present validity of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31 ff.), established in the death
of the kyrios (Exod. 24:8). And when the assembled congregation eats the broken
533
LORD’S SUPPER
bread, they receive a share in the Lord who was delivered up to death for them.
But here soma (—> Body) is not thought of as substance but means the very person
(cf. G. Bornkamm, op. cit., 145).
Paul’s own view is most clearly expressed in | Cor. 10:17, “‘Because there is one
loaf’ (which gives us a share in Christ, who was delivered up to death as our sub-
stitute), ““we who are many are one body,” 1.e. the body of Christ as a community.
For Paul, Christ delivered up for us, whom we receive in the bread, automatically
includes the church as the body of Christ, the church in which we are included
through the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s particular concern, therefore, is the relationship
between the Lord’s Supper and the church; for him the christological concept of the
body implies the ecclesiastical one as well (G. Bornkamm, op. cit., 144).
It is possible that the Corinthian abuses arose, because the Lord’s Supper was
conceived as granting the individual participant the food of immortality. Hence, its
meaning as the basis of the body of Christ, uniting those sharing in it together as its
members, was missed. Church-members from the slave class were apt to arrive too
late and could therefore no longer take part in the table-fellowship of the meal
proper (1 Cor. 11:21); only the sacrament itself remained for them. But if in the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper the one body of Christ is actualized, any Lord’s
Supper which does not achieve real table-fellowship (11:20) is exposed as an abuse
(G. Bornkamm, op. cit., 122-30, 154 ff.; cf. E. Schweizer, RGG? I 11).
(iv) In comparison with the Marcan form and even with Paul, Lk. reveals clear
signs of a developing liturgical influence. In the interests of liturgical parallelism
the eschatological perspective was attached to the words over the bread too (note
the twofold eschatological utterances, Lk. 22:16, 18), which results in a parallelism
between the twofold eschatological utterances (vv. 16, 18) and the words of institu-
tion (vv. 19, 20). Its appearance before the words of institution was no doubt
determined by the fact that the eschatological theme stood at the centre of the
Jewish-Christian Passover Haggadah. This comment is based on the view held by a
number of scholars (e.g. B. Lohse, Das Passahfest der Quartadezimaner, 1953, 62 f.;
J. Jeremias, TDNT V 896-904; and op. cit., 122 ff.; F. Hahn, EvTh 27, 1967,
352 ff.), that Lk. 22:15-20 mirrors the liturgy of a Jewish-Christian Passover
celebration. The latter included vicarious fasting at night for — Israel, the expecta-
tion of the Parousia on Passover night and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper
about 3 a.m. at the end of the period of fasting. It is here also, probably, that we
find the setting for the interpretation of Christ as the eschatological Passover lamb
(1 Cor. 5:7), which is typologically contrasted with the Passover lambs of the exodus
and is the theological reason for the renunciation of the eating of the Passover
lamb in the primitive church (cf. Jesus’ explanations of his renunciation according
to Lk. 22:16, 18).
(v) Jn. is the only Gospel which does not give an account of the Lord’s Supper
in the context of Jesus’ last meal (13:1—30). Jn. 6 refers to eating Christ’s flesh and
drinking his blood after telling of the feeding of the five thousand (6:51-—58). R.
Bultmann (The Gospel of John, 1971, 209 f., 234-7) and G. Bornkamm (ZNW 47,
1956, 161 ff.) consider that vv. 51c—58 are editorial additions by the church to
John’s Gospel. But E. Ruckstuhl (Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums,
1951, 149, 164, 266), J. Jeremias (ZNW 44,. 1952-53, 256 f.), E. Schweizer (Neo-
testamentica, 1963, 371 ff.), and L. Goppelt (TDNT VIII 236 f.) support the literary
534
LORD’S SUPPER
unity of the discourse on the bread and feeding on Christ. However, Jn. 6:51c may
be a late version of Jesus’ words of institution of the bread: This (bread) is my
flesh (sarx), (which I give) for the life of the world. If the introduction of the idea of
the covenant in Hellenistic Jewish Christianity (Mk. 14:24) resulted in the Church’s
seeing Jesus’ death as an atoning and a covenant sacrifice, in Jn. (6:51 ff.) we now
have the first appearance of the pair of terms, sarx/haima (flesh/blood), as the logical
conclusion of the use of the language of sacrifice. It is thought that Jn. also betrays
a later stage of development by speaking of eating (lit. chewing) the flesh and
drinking the blood (ho trégon mou tén sarka kai pindn mou to haima, ‘‘He who eats
my flesh and drinks my blood’’). It thus made a close connection between the
elements in the meal and the component parts of the person of Christ. However,
eating the flesh and drinking the blood must not, according to Jn., be misunder-
stood in a literal and sacramental sense, for v. 63 clearly shows that Jn. is thinking
of the personal presence of Christ spiritually through his word, and his self-
offering in word and sacrament through faith (6:35, 47, 54). But then the reference
to eating the flesh, etc., is in an anti-docetic setting and is intended to emphasize
the “‘scandal of the full incarnation.” ““Thus in Jn., so to speak, the Lord’s Supper
holds fast to Jesus’ fleshly form and prevents it... evaporating to become a mere
idea of Christ’ (E. Schweizer, RGG? I 12). For John “eating the flesh’’ and ‘‘drink-
ing the blood”’ of the Son of man is the continuing sign of participation in his life
by faith and to share in it is to continue to acknowledge the full reality of the
incarnation of the divine Logos. |
({Ed.] It is commonly assumed that Jn. 6 is about the Lord’s Supper, even though
there is no hint in the text itself to any form of meal, liturgical or otherwise. Not-
withstanding, it is repeatedly called a eucharistic discourse, even though there is
no reference to the eucharist or to the Last Supper. Yet there is at least a prima
facie case for saying the reverse. Jn. 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper; rather, the
Lord’s Supper is about what is described in Jn. 6. It concerns that eating and drinlk-
ing which is belief in Christ (6:35), which is eternal life (6:54), and which in other
words is described as abiding in him (6:56). The discourse in Jn. 6 represents these
activities as central to faith and to men’s relationship with Jesus. They are not
confined to a sacramental meal. They belong to the very essence of day-to-day
relationships. In presenting this discourse and omitting an account of the institu-
tion of the Lord’s Supper, Jn. is, in effect, saying that the whole of the Christian
life should be characterized by this kind of feeding on Christ and that this is what
the sacramental meal of the church is really about. In his account of Jesus’ last
meal with his disciples Jn. gives prominence to the feet-washing with the reminder,
“If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash
one another’s feet... . Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I
send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me” [Jn. 13; 14, 20].)
(c) The principal theological ideas in the words of institution. While the original
form of the words of institution in Aram. contained the idea of Jesus’ self-offering
(Mk. 14:22), his substitutionary death for the many (Mk. 14:24), and the eschato-
logical reference to the coming of the + kingdom of God (14:25) at its centre, in
Hellenistic Jewish Christianity (Mk.) the reference to the covenant was added to
the words over the cup (Mk. 14:24). Jesus’ death is an atoning covenant sacrifice
which inaugurates the eschatological era of salvation. Matt. (26:28) interpreted
535
LORD’S SUPPER
the fellowship with God set up by the covenant sacrifice as the forgiveness of sins
(Jer. 31:34b). In Paul (and Lk.), for the sake of balance, the reference to atone-
ment was transferred from the Marcan words over the cup to those over the bread
(1 Cor. 11:24; Lk. 22:19), so that the words over the cup are now qualified by the
reference to the covenant based on Jer. 31:31 ff. (1 Cor. 11:25; Lk. 22:20). Paul
for his part, in opposition to Corinthian sacramentalism, laid his emphasis on the
indissoluble link between the Lord’s Supper and the church (Christ delivered up for
us constitutes the church as the — body of Christ; 1 Cor. 10:16), while Jn., in an
anti-gnostic confrontation, stressed the connection between eating Christ’s flesh
and drinking his blood and the incarnation.
({F. F. Bruce] That the covenant idea first entered into the transmitted words of
institution in the Greek-speaking phase of primitive Christianity is highly im-
probable. The covenant idea is thoroughly Hebraic, and in any case one should
treat with profound scepticism the suggestion that it was impossible to formulate
in Aramaic certain expressions, such as ““This is my covenant blood” or “‘This
blood of mine is the blood of the covenant”’.)
The references to the covenant (Mk.) and to forgiveness (Matt.), as well as the
ecclesiastical (Paul) and the anti-docetic (Jn.) emphases, embrace and actualize by a
process of continuous reinterpretation the essential significance of the event of
Jesus’ self-offering and of his universal substitutionary death (Mk. 14:24). They
underline the following aspects of the Lord’s Supper: (1) The proclamation of the
substitutionary self-offering of Jesus and the guarantee of the final eschatological
banquet (original form). (ii) Participation in God’s order of salvation, set up by
Jesus’ death as a covenant sacrifice (Mk.). (411) An assurance of the forgiveness of
sins (Matt.). (iv) Incorporation into the new covenant and the founding of the
Church as the body of Christ (Paul). (v) The proclamation of the incarnation of the
Logos, in which the Son’s self-offering is accomplished (Jn.). All this is actualized
and given in the Lord’s Supper only because the risen Christ is present there. And
in so far as the crucified and risen kyrios offers himself in the meal, the grace
conveyed by the Lord’s Supper is Jesus Christ. He himself makes his presence real
as the Supper is celebrated and thus makes it the Lord’s Supper. B. Klappert
—> Blood, — Body, — Bread, — Feast, > Hunger, — Present
(a). J. J. von Allmen, Worship: Its Theology and Practice, 1965; G. Aulén, Eucharist and Sacrifice,
1958; W. Barclay, The Lord’s Supper, 1967; N. A. Beck, ““The Last Supper as an Efficacious
Symbolic Act’, JBL 89, 1970, 192-98; J. Behm, haima, haimatekchysia, TDNT J 172-77; deipnon,
deipned, TDNT II 34 f.; and ““Vom urchristlichen Abendmahl’’, 7iR Neue Folge 9, 1937, 168 ff.,
273 ff.; 10, 1938, 81 ff.; M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 1961, 91 ff., 199 ff.; G. Born-
kamm, ‘““The Anathema in the Early Christian Lord’s Supper Liturgy’’, Early Christian Experience,
1969, 169-76; and ‘“‘Lord’s Supper and Church in Paul’’, ibid., 123-60; R. E. Brown, ‘“‘The Eu-
charist and Baptism in John’’, New Testament Essays, 1965, 77-95; O. Cullmann, Early Christian
Worship, 1953; The Christology of the New Testament, 19637; O. Cullmann and F. J. Leenhardt,
Essays on the Lord’s Supper, 1958; J. D. G. Dunn, “John vi — A Eucharistic Discourse ?”’, NTS 17,
1970-71, 328-38; W. Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, 1966;
A. Farrer, ““The Eucharist in I Corinthians”, in Eucharistic Theology Then and Now, SPCK
Theological Collections, 1968, 15-33; R. H. Fuller, ““The Double Origin of the Eucharist’’, Biblical
Research, 7, 1963, 60 ff.; B. Gartner, John 6 and the Jewish Passover, Coniectanea Neotestamentica 7,
1959; A. Gilmore, ““The Date and Significance of the Last Supper’, SJT 14, 1961, 256 ff.; L.
Goppelt, potérion, TDNT VI 148-59; and trogo, TDNT VIII 236 ff.; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus
in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity, 1969; A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the
536
LORD’S SUPPER
New Testament, SBT 6, 1952; N. Hook, The Eucharist in the New Testament, 1964; J. K. Howard,
‘‘Passover and Eucharist in the Fourth Gospel’’, SJT 20, 1967, 329-37; J. C. Hurd, Jr., The Origin
of I Corinthians, 1965; A. Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper, 1965; J. Jeremias, pascha, TDNT
V 896-904; polloit, TDNT VI 536-45; and The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 19662; E. Kasemann,
‘*The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper’, Essays on New Testament Themes, 1964, 108-35;
J. F. Keating, The Agape and the Eucharist in the Early Church, (1901) 1969; E. J. Kilmartin,
The Eucharist in the Primitive Church, 1965; W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 1966; K. G.
Kuhn, maranatha, TDNT IV 466-72; and “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at
Qumran’’, in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament, 1958, 65-93; N. Lash, His
Presence in the World: A Study of Eucharistic Worship and Theology, 1968; P. E. Leonard, Luke’s
Account of the Lord’s Supper against the Background of Meals in the Ancient Semitic World and
more particularly Meals in the Gospel of Luke, Dissertation, Manchester, 1976; H. Lietzmann,
Mass and the Lord’s Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy, with introduction and supple-
mentary essay by R. D. Richardson, to be published in 11 fascicles, 1953-; E. Lohmeyer, The
Lord of the Temple: A Study of the Relation between Cult and Temple, 1961; R. P. Martin, Worship
in the Early Church, 19752; W. Marxsen, The Lord’s Supper as a Christological Problem, 1970; and
‘*The Lord’s Supper: Concepts and Developments”’, in H. J. Schultz, ed., Jesus in His Time, 1971;
C. F. D. Moule, Worship in the New Testament, 1961; G. Ogg, ‘“‘The Chronology of the Last
Supper’’, in Historicity and Chronology in the New Testament, SPCK Theological Collections 6,
1965, 75-96; E. Ruckstuhl, Chronology of the Last Days of Jesus, 1965; E. Schweizer, sOma etc.,
TDNT VII 1024-94; and The Lord’s Supper according to the New Testament, 1967; A. Shaw, ““The
Breakfast by the Shore and the Mary Magdalene Encounter as Eucharistic Narratives’, JTS New
Series 25, 1974, 12-26; A. Stéger, ‘““Eucharist”, EBT I 227-41; V. Taylor, Jesus and his Sacrifice,
1965°, 114 ff., 175 ff., 201 ff., 236 ff.; and ‘““The New Testament Origins of Holy Communion’’,
in New Testament Essays, 1970, 48-59; J. Wilkinson, The Supper and the Eucharist, 1965; R.
Williamson, ““The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews’’, N7S 21, 1974-75, 300-12.
(b). L. Aalen, “Der Kampf um das Evangelium im Abendmahl’’, TLZ 91, 1966, 81 ff.; A. Adam,
‘““Ein vergessener Aspekt des frithchristlichen Herrenmahls”’, TLZ 88, 1963, 9 ff.; J.-P. Audet,
‘“‘Esquisse historique du genre littéraire de la ‘bénédiction’ juive et de ‘l’eucharistie’ Chrétienne’’,
RB 65, 1958, 371-99; F. Bammel, Das heilige Mahl im Glauben der Volker, 1950; F. Bammel and
G. Fohrer, ‘‘Mahlzeiten’’, RGG? IV 605 ff.; M. Barth, Das Abendmahl, Passamahl, Bundesmahl
und Messiasmahl, TheolStud 18, 1945; J. Betz, Die Eucharistie in der Zeit der griechischen Vater,
I, 1, 1955; and L7K III 1159-62; E. Bizer and W. Kreck, Die Abendmahlslehre in den reforma-
torischen Bekenntnissen, ThEH Neue Folge, 47 1957; G. Bornkamm, “Die eucharistische Rede
im Johannesevangelium’’, ZNW 47, 1956, 161 ff.; M. Brandle, Jesu letztes Mahl im Lichte von
Qumran, 1957, 111 ff., 121 ff.; G. Delling, ““Das Abendmahlsgeschehen nach Paulus’, KuD 10,
1964, 61 ff.; E. Gaugler, Das Abendmahl im Neuen Testament, Gegenwartsfragen Biblischer
Theologie, 2, 1943; H. Gollwitzer, Coena Domini, 1937, L. Goppelt, Typos, 19677, 131 ff., 173 ff.;
F. Hahn, ‘“‘Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der urchristlichen Abendmahlsitiberlieferung”’, Ev7h
27, 1967, 337-74; O. Hofius, “‘Bis das er kommt’’, NTS 14, 1967-68, 439 ff.; B. van Iersel, ‘‘Die
wunderbare Speisung und das Abendmahl in der synoptischen Tradition’, NovT 7, 1964, 167 ff.;
A. Jaubert, “Jésus et le calendrier de Qumran’’, NTS 7, 1960-61, 1-30; O. Koch, Gegenwart oder
Vergegenwartigung Christi im Abendmahl, 1965; H. Kosmala, “Das tut zu meinem Gedachtnis”,
NovT 4, 1960, 81 ff.; K. G. Kuhn, “Die Abendmahlsworte”, TLZ 75, 1950, 399 ff.; and “Uber
den urspriinglichen Sinn des Abendmahls”’, Ev7h 11/12, 1950-51, 508 ff.; F. J. Leenhardt, “‘L’ Eu-
charistie dans le Nouveau Testament”, Lumiére et Vie 31, 1957; H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther,
I, ll, HNT 9, 19494; E. Lohmeyer, ‘‘Das Abendmahl in der Urgemeinde’’, JBL 56, 1937, 246 ff.;
and “Vom urchristlichen Abendmahl’’, TAR Neue Folge 9, 1937, 168 ff., 273 ff.; 10, 1938, 81 ff.;
E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottesknecht, 19637; ‘“‘Wort und Sakrament im Johannesvangelium’’,
NTS 7, 1960-61, 110 ff.; and Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi, 1964; W. Marxsen,
“Der Ursprung des Abendmahls’’, Ev7Th 12, 1952-53, 293 ff.; and “‘Abendmahl’’, EKL I 4 ff.;
J. M. Nielen, ‘““Die Eucharistiefeier der altesten Christenheit nach den Aussagen des Neuen
Testaments”, Buk 15, 1960, 43 ff.; P. Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl, Studien zur paulinischen
Eucharistieauffasung, 1960; P. Philippi, Abendmahlsfeier und Wirklichkeit der Gemeinde, 1960;
M. Rese, “Zur Problematik von Kurz- und Langtext in Luk. xxii 17 ff.”, N7\S 22, 1975-76, 15-
31; F. Reitschel, ““Der Sinn des Abendmahls nach Paulus”, Ec7h 18, 1958, 269 ff.; E. Ruckstuhl,
‘“‘Wesen und Kraft der Eucharistie in der Sicht des Johannesevangeliums”’, Opfer der Kirche, 1954,
537
LORD’S SUPPER/LOVE
47-90; H. Schtirmann, Der Paschamahlbericht Lk. 22, (7-14) 15-18, 1953; Der Einzetsungsbericht
Lk. 22, 19-20, NTAbh 20, 4, 1955; ‘“‘Die Gestalt der urchristlichen Eucharistiefeier’’, Miunchener
Theologische Zeitschrift 6, 1955, 107-31; Jesu Abschiedsrede Lk. 22, 21-38, 1957; Die Abendmahls-
bericht Lk. 22, 7-38, 1957; and “‘Die Eucharistie als Reprasentation und Applikation nach Joh. 6,
53-58”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 68, 1959, 30-45, 108-18; R. Schnackenburg, ‘‘Die Sakra-
mente im Johannesevangelium’’, Sacra Pagina 2, 1959, 239-43; E. Schweizer, ‘‘Das Herrenmahl,
eine Vergenwartigung des Todes Jesu oder ein eschatologisches Freudenmahl?’’, ThZ 2, 1946,
81 ff.; ‘Das johanneische Zeugnis vom Herrenmahl”, Ev7Th 12, 1952-53, 341 ff. (reprinted in
Neotestamentica: Deutsche und englische Aufsdtze, 1951-1963, 1963, 371-96); ‘‘Das Herrenmahl
im Neuen Testament, ein Forschungsbericht’’, TLZ 79, 1954, 577 ff. (Neotestamentica, 1963, 344—
70); and ‘‘Abendmahl’’, RGG? I 10 ff.; E. M. Skibbe, ‘“‘Das Proprium des Abendmahls”’, KuD 10,
1964, 78 ff.; A. St6ger, Brot des Lebens, 1955; and “‘Die Eucharistiefeier des Neuen Testaments’’,
Eucharistiefeiern der Christenheit, 1960, 10-19; P. Vielhauer, ‘“Ein Weg zur neutestamentlichen
Christologie? Priifung der Thesen Ferdinand Hahns’’, Aufsdtze zum Neuen Testament, 1965, 141-
98: G. Walther, Jesus das Passalamm des neuen Bundes, 1950; W. Wilkens, ‘““Das Abendmahls-
zeugnis im 4. Evangelium’’, EvTh 18, 1958, 354 ff.
Love
What we describe as love is differentiated in Gk. by various expressions (for details
— agapao CL). philed is the most commonly used word, indicating a general attrac-
tion towards a person or thing. In the foreground stands the meaning of love for
one’s relatives and friends (cf. the typical formation of philadelphia, love for a
brother; — Brother, art. adelphos), but the whole area of fondness is also included
with gods, men and things as possible objects. philia accordingly, denotes love,
friendship, devotion, favour; and philos is a relative or friend. By contrast erds
is love which desires to have or take possession. agapad, originally meaning to
honour or welcome, is in classical Gk. the least specifically defined word; it is
frequently used synonymously with philed without any necessarily strict distinction
in meaning. In the NT, however, agapad and the noun agapé have taken on a
particular significance in that they are used to speak of the love of God or the way
of life based on it.
[ayant ayanaw (agapad), love; ayamn (agapé), love; ayanntoc
| (agapétos), loved, beloved; épdw (erad), love passionately,
desire, yearn; &pwe (erds), passionate love; ¢diAdatopyoc (philostorgos), tenderly
loving, affectionate; datopyoc (astorgos), without natural affection.
cL In contradistinction to Eng., extra-biblical Gk. has quite a number of words
for love and to love; the most important being — philed, stergd, erad and
agapao.
1. philed is the most general word for love or regard with affection. The many
derivative words show this clearly: e.g., philos, a friend; philema, a kiss; and com-
pound words such as philosophia, love of knowledge, philosophy (— wisdom);
philoxenia, hospitality (— Foreign, art. xenos); and proper names like Philippos
(lit. lover of horses, horse-lover). philed mainly denotes the attraction of people to
one another who are close together both inside and outside the family; it includes
concern, care and hospitality, also love for things in the sense of being fond of.
Ideas related to phileo do not have a clear religious emphasis,
538
LOVE
2. The less frequent vb. stergd means to love, feel affection, especially of the
mutual love of parents and children. It can also be used of the love of a people for
their ruler, the love of a tutelary god for the people, and even of dogs for their
master. It is less common for the love of husband and wife, and does not occur at
all in the NT, apart from the compounds astorgos (Rom. 1:31; 2 Tim. 3:3) and
philostorgos (Rom. 12:10). It is, however, found in some early Christian writings
(e.g. | Clem. 1:3; Polycarp 4:2).
3. The vb. erad and the noun erds, on the other hand, denote the love between
man and woman which embraces longing, craving and desire. The Greeks’ delight
in bodily beauty and sensual desires found expression here inthe Dionysiac approach
to, and feeling for, life. Sensual ecstasy leaves moderation and proportion far
behind, and the Gk. tragedians (e.g. Soph., Ant. 781 ff.) knew the irresistible power
of Eros — the god of love bore the same name — which forgot all reason, will and
discretion on the way to ecstasy.
There was also a more mystical understanding of eros, whereby the Greeks
sought to reach and go beyond normal human limitations in order to attain per-
fection. As well as the fertility cults with their oriental influences, and their glori-
fication of the generating Eros in nature, there were the mystery religions, whose
rites were intended to unite the participant with the godhead. Here spiritual and
psychical unity with the god came into the foreground more and more, however
much erotic pictures and symbols were used. Plato sought to raise spiritual love
above the physical. erds for him was the striving for righteousness, self-possession
and wisdom; it is the embodiment of the good, the way to attain immortality
(Symp. 200, 206; Phaedr. 237 ff., 242 ff.). In Aristotle (Met. 12, 7p, 1072a, 27 f.)
the concept was further developed in this direction, and in Plotinus (A.D. 205—
c. 269) the mystical aspiration towards spiritual union with the transcendental dom-
inates (Enneads 5, 5, 8; 6, 8, 15). In the early Christian era gnosis (> Knowledge)
found its place in this approach, giving its own particular slant to the human desire
for self-transcendence.
4. The etymology of agapad and agapé is not clear. The vb. agapao appears
frequently from Homer onwards in Gk. literature, but the noun agapé is only a
late Gk. construction. Only one reference has been found outside the Bible, where
the goddess Isis is given the title agapé (P.Oxy. 1380, 109; 2nd cent. A.D.).
agapao in Gk. is often quite colourless as a word, appearing frequently as an
alternative to, or a synonym with, erad and philed, meaning to be fond of, treat
respectfully, be pleased with, welcome. When, on rare occasions, it refers to some-
one favoured by a god (cf. Dio. Chrys., Orationes 33, 21), it is clear that, unlike
erad, it is not the man’s own longing for possessions or worth that is meant, but a
generous move by one for the sake of the other. This is expressed above all in the
way agapétos is used, mostly of a child, but particularly of an only child to whom
all the love of his parents is given.
oT In the LXX agapao is used by preference to translate the Heb. vb. ’ahéb. The
noun agapé finds its origin here, in standing for Heb. ’ah*bah. The vb. occurs
far more frequently than the noun. ’ahéb can refer to both persons and things, and
denotes first men’s relationships with each other, and secondly God’s relationship
with man.
539
LOVE
1. (a) Love and hate represent for the Eastern sensibility two of the basic
polarized attitudes to life. The phenomenon of love in the OT is experienced as a
spontaneous force which drives one to something or someone over against itself.
Love means the vital urge of the sexes for one another. The prophets Hosea (3:1;
4:18), Jeremiah (2:25) and Ezekiel (16:37) were not at all ashamed to speak of the
sexual side of love. The powerful perception of the differentiation of the sexes and
of marital love as an enriching gift does not only derive from the creation stories
(Gen. 2:18 ff.), but even more from Cant., which celebrates the strength of passion-
ate love. ‘““Love is strong as death, jealousy is as cruel as the grave. Its flashes are
flashes of fire, a most vehement flame’”’ (Cant. 8:6).
(b) But as well as the relationship between the sexes, the blood relationship with
father and mother and the spiritual bond between friends can also be love. (It is
not possible in Heb. to distinguish between erad and agapad.) Thus, when the love
of Jonathan and David for one another is spoken of (1 Sam. 18:1, 3; 20:17), this is
expressed in terms of a communal fellowship deeper than love for a woman:
“your love for me was wonderful, passing the love of women’”’ (2 Sam. 1:26).
(c) In a further sense, love is understood as lying at the root of social com-
munity life: ‘“‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’’ (Lev. 19:18; — Brother,
art. plésion; ~ Command; — Law, art. nomos). Love in this context means
devotion towards one’s neighbour for his sake, accepting him as a brother and
letting him come into his own. This aspect is illustrated by the social legislation, -
which is particularly concerned with the rights of aliens (Lev. 19:34; — Foreign),
the — poor (Lev. 25:35) and — orphans.
2. The word love is used less commonly and with greater caution for describing
the relationship between God and man. In this respect the OT contrasts with Gk.
literature in being far removed from any mystical thinking. In the OT man can
never ascend to God; in the Gk. understanding of erdés he can. It is because all
human thought, feeling, action and worship are a response to a previous movement
by God, that the LXX prefers the simpler word agapé to the more loaded eros.
The completely different direction of thought makes this quite understandable.
(a) At the beginning of the OT stands not only the God who loves, but also the
God who elects, and the God who creates facts through direct action in nature
and with men — in particular, with his people, with whom he has made a > cove-
nant (Exod. 24). The great deeds of Yahweh are the deeds of his history with his
people, such as the Exodus, the gift of the land and the Torah. Righteousness,
faithfulness, love and grace are some of the concepts embodied in such actions.
The people, in turn, reply with jubilation, praise and obedience.
God’s judgment and — grace (hesed) permeate the whole of the OT. It is not a
characteristic of God that is being described; it is always the total activity which is
based on his sovereign will. God holds to his covenant, despite — Israel’s frequent
relapses which draw God’s wrath on them. The only ground for this is to be found
in his electing grace and love (e.g. Hos. 11:1). Statements concerning this devotion
of God to his people reach the level of suffering love, as Isa. 53 predicates of the
Servant of God.
(b) It was the — prophets who first ventured to elaborate on the theme of the
love of God as the main motif of his electing work. It was an enormity of unique
540
LOVE
proportions for Hosea, surrounded by the Canaanite world of sexual fertility-cults
and love-feasts, to represent the relationship between Yahweh and his people as
that of a deceived husband and a prostitute (— Marriage). Yet, despite the fact that
Israel had broken the covenant, and thus become a whore and an adulteress,
Yahweh still wooed back his faithless wife, the godless covenant people, with
an inconceivable love (2:19 f.). Israel is not his people (1:9), but will become his
people again through Yahweh’s patient and winsome wooing (2:23). But, besides
using the picture of marriage, Hosea also used the picture of a — father to describe
Yahweh’s unfathomable love for Israel, whom he loved in — Egypt and drew to
himself with bonds of love (11:1 ff.). Israel, however, turned away. So Hosea
pictured the struggle, which he saw as going on inside Yahweh himself, as that
between the jealous wrath of a deceived father and his glowing love: ‘“‘How can I
give you up, O Ephraim! How can J hand you over, O Israel? ... My heart recoils
within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce
anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not man, the Holy One
in your midst, and I will not come to Cestroy” (11:8 f.). This description by
Hosea of the passionate and zealous love of God is unprecedented in its boldness.
For, according to Hosea, the God-ness of God does not express itself in destructive
power, but in tender and compassionate love, which precedes any responsive human
love, and which suffers through the faithlessness of his people (6:4) and does not
hand them over to ultimate ruin.
The later prophets took over from Hosea the picture of love and the theme of the
beloved, with modifications. Jeremiah spoke of Israel’s first love in the wilderness,
and its growing cold in Canaan (Jer. 2:1 ff.). But Yahweh’s love is everlasting (31 : 3),
and he will help up the degenerate people again (3:6—-10; 31:4). In Isa. 54:4-8 it is
not the wife who has left her husband, but Yahweh who left his young bride, to
whom he now again turns in compassion. ‘‘For the Lord has called you like a wife
forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast off, says your
God. For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great compassion I will gather
you”’ (54:6 f.). One can even speak of Yahweh’s political love which is to be recog-
nized in the return of the exiles from Babylon: “‘Because you are precious in my
eyes, and honoured, and I love you, I give men in return for you, peoples in ex-
change for your life” (43:4).
(c) Deut., also expresses similar ideas. But whereas in the prophets Yahweh’s
love is the sole and incredible basis for his future actions in saving his lost people,
the allusions to Yahweh’s electing love in Deut. always provide the ground for
exhorting Israel on its side to love God and to follow his directing. (7:6-11). ““You
shall love the LorD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with
all your might” (6:5; -~ Command; — Law, art. nomos). This love for God is
realized in obedience to his will as expressed in the covenant, in keeping the
law (Exod. 20:6; Deut. 10:12 f.), and in devotion to one’s neighbour (Lev. 19:18).
There is a nice example of the way human social love is to be founded on the acts
of God in the law concerning aliens: ““The stranger who sojourns with you shall
be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you
were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LorD, your God” (Lev. 19:34).
Love, here, means dealing with a friend as a friend. Of course, the command to love
one’s neighbour is not, in the OT, something capable of comprehending the whole
541
LOVE
law: love for Yahweh is represented in a whole gamut of instructions and directives.
3. (a) In Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judaism agapé became the central concept
for describing God’s relationship with man and vice versa. Despite mystical nuances
derived from Greece and the Orient, the word still maintained its basic OT impli-
cations. God loves his people through every distress they meet. Proof of his love is
the Torah: the believer reciprocates God’s love as he obeys the commandments,
emulates God’s zealous compassion, and remains true to God, even to the point
of martyrdom (4 Macc. 13:24; 15:3). Loving one’s neighbour is the chief — com-
mandment to the pious Jew. There are even individual examples of commands to
help one’s enemy, if need be, whether a member of the chosen people or not.
There is also the occasional observation that God allows his forgiving love to hold
sway well beyond the requirements of justice (SB I 905; 917 f.; III] 451, 485; 766,
778).
(b) Essential for an understanding of the NT is the quite different structure of
Qumran piety. The community believed that it had been chosen in God’s love,
but that this only had reference to the children of light. God loves the angel of
light and hates all who belong to the company of Belial. There is an often repeated
command: ‘‘Love everyone whom God elects, hate everyone he hates” (1QS 1:3 f.;
contrast Matt. 5:43 ff.). The command to love does indeed play an important rdéle,
but since God’s love is not conceived as having universal application, even love for
one’s neighbour only has a restricted reference to members of the community.
(Cf. E. F. Sutcliffe, “Hatred at Qumran”, Revue de Qumran 2, 1959-60, 345-55.)
NT 1. (a) In the NT love is one of the central ideas which express the whole content
of the Christian faith (cf. Jn. 3:16). God’s activity is love, which looks for men’s
reciprocal love (1 Jn. 4:8, 16).
(b) It is significant that stergd only occurs in the NT in Rom. 12:10 in the com-
pound philostorgos, loving dearly, in an expression in which Paul emphasizes the
need for love in the church by piling up words for love té philadelphia eis allélous
philostorgoi, ‘“devoted to one another in brotherly love’ [Arndt, 869], and in
Rom. 1:31; 2 Tim. 3:3 in the compound astorgos, heartless, inhuman, without
natural affection. As an illustration of such lack of natural, family affection, C. E. B.
Cranfield cites the practice of exposing unwanted babies and Seneca’s justification
for drowning weakly or deformed infants (The Epistle to the Romans, ICC, I,
1975, 132 f.; cf. Seneca, De Ira 1, 15). Moreover, erds and erad do not occur at all.
As A. Nygren has shown, the reason for this is that the anthropocentric way of
thinking which is inevitably bound up with these words does not correspond with
the NT approach (Agape and Eros, 19537). philed, on the other hand, does appear
commonly, though it also features in compound words. However, it remains in
every case a more limited and colourless word. A typical example would be
philadelphia, love for a friend or brother (2 Pet. 1:7). The main emphasis of philed
is on love for people who are closely connected, either by blood or by faith. Jn.
15:19; 11:36; 16:27 use it in the context of the father-child relationship. agapad
and philed are used synonymously in Jn. 3:35 and 5:20 (cf. 16:27) of the Father’s
love for the Son, and in Jn. 21:15 ff., when Jesus asked Peter whether he loved him
and in Peter’s reply. ([F. F. Bruce] The attempts of B. F. Westcott and others to
find significance in the variation between the two verbs in Jn. 21:15 ff. have now
542
LOVE
generally been abandoned — the more so because opposite and mutually inconsis-
tent conclusions have been drawn from the variation [as by Westcott on the one
hand, and R. C. Trench on the other]. The variation is a feature of Johannine style:
in the same three verses two different words are also used for ““know’’, two for
“feed” [or “‘tend’’] and two for “‘sheep’”’ [or ‘“‘lambs’’].) In 1 Cor. 16:22 philed is
clearly used of love for the Lord Jesus: “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let
him be accursed. Our Lord, come!” (— Present, art. maranatha).
(c) By contrast, agapé and agapao are used in nearly every case in the NT to
speak of God’s relationship with man — not unexpectedly, in view of the OT usage.
Where agapé is obviously directed towards things (Lk. 11:43), the very use of the
vb. agapao is intended to make it plain that here love is directed to the wrong ends,
i.e. not towards God. Thus the vb. is used of misdirected love in Jn. 3:19 (love of
skotos, darkness), Jn. 12:43 (love of doxa ton anthropon, the glory of men), and 2
Tim. 4:10 (love of the nyn aion, the present age). But in the case of the noun agapé
there is no corresponding negative usage in the NT. It is always in the sense of hé
agapé tou theou, the love of God, either subjective gen. (i.e. God’s love of men) or
the objective gen. (i.e. men’s love of God), or referring to the divine love for other
men which the presence of God evokes. This brings agapé very close to concepts
like pistis, — faith, dikaiosyné, — righteousness and, charis — grace, which all have
a single point of origin in God alone.
2. (a) In the Synoptic tradition the main emphasis falls on the preaching of the
— kingdom of God and of the new way of life which breaks in with Jesus himself.
God sends his beloved Son (in Matt. and Mk. ho agapétos), to whom to listen is to
be saved (Mk. 1:11 par. Matt. 3:17; cf. Lk. 3:22; Mk.9:7 par., Matt. 17:5; cf.
Lk. 9:35; cf. Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1; Gen. 22:1 ff.). Lk. has agapétos as v./. and in the
parable in Lk. 20:13 as does Mk. 12:6 (but not Matt. 21:38). agapétos also figures
in the christological interpretation of Isa. 42:1 in Matt. 12:18. However, agapé is
scarcely ever used to express the motive behind this. Instead other words, pictures
and parables take its place (e.g. oiktirmon, merciful, compassionate, Lk. 6:36;
eleos, mercy, compassion, pity, Lk. 1:50 ff.; eleed, have mercy or pity, Matt.
18:33). Jesus’ activity among men thus reveals the mercy and love of God: Jesus
himself is the one who truly loves, and takes to himself the poor, the sick and
sinners.
The word agapé is not found in the passion narrative either. But the underlying
thought of mercy and love as the way God intends to redeem lies clearly in the
background. It may be seen in the hyper pollén (‘‘for many’’) in the account of the
—> Last Supper (Mk. 14:24; Matt. 26:28; cf. also Mk. 10:45) and the paradidonai
(‘‘betray’’, “hand over’’) of Jesus to death (Matt. 26:45; Mk. 14:41).
The Sermon on the Mount is best understood when the Beatitudes are seen
in the first instance as statements by Jesus about himself (Matt. 5:3-11; cf. Lk.
6:20 ff.; — Blessing art. makarios). Jesus is the first to keep the radical demands
of discipleship and so fulfil the law. The command to love one’s enemies (Matt.
5:44; cf. Lk. 6:27), the word of forgiveness from the — cross (Lk. 23:34), and the
promise to the robber (Lk. 23:43) all fit into the same pattern.
(b) In the Synoptics love for God is based on the two — commandments (Matt.
22:34-40 par. Mk. 12:28-34; cf. Lk. 10:25-28). Here too, through God’s mercy,
grows the new reality of love which is revealed in Jesus’ ministry. His followers
543
LOVE
enter and share this, and so fulfil the demands of the Sermon on the Mount.
Discipleship (— Disciple), however, also involves — suffering: and when a disciple
does suffer he is recognized by God (Matt. 10:37 ff.; 25:31 ff.; Lk. 6:22 ff.). This
demand indicates the hardship love has to face; it can only succeed in this world
by way of suffering. If love cost God what was most dear to him, the same will
certainly apply to a disciple.
(c) This approach provides a different interpretation for loving one’s neighbour
or one’s brother, one unknown either to rabbis or Greeks. It is God’s love, creating
the new realities amongst mankind, which is itself the basis and motivation for love
between people. The commands to love can again be cited here. The combination
of Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 appears only in Mk. 12:28 par. (on this — Command;
—> Brother; art. plésion; ~ Law, art. nomos). The second half, love for one’s
neighbour, is also quoted in Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; Jas. 2:8. The two commands
were also stressed by the rabbis: Rabbi Akiba calls the command to love one’s
neighbour a basic principle of the Torah, embracing all others (cf. SB I 900-8 on
Matt. 22:36 ff.). But the summation and substantiation of the command in the
love of God is a peculiarly NT insight. Further, Jesus decisively stepped over the
boundaries of Jewish tradition in the radical command to love one’s enemies (Matt.
5:43-48 par. Lk. 6:27 f., 32-36). It is true that a general love for people, even for
all creatures, had already been accepted as axiomatic. But the radical and laconic
nature of the sentence — enemies are to be loved —is quite foreign to Rabbinic
teaching (cf. SB I 553-68). Jesus, the Son of God, loves those who crucify him;
in fact he died for them. Jesus’ interpretation of this command in the parable of the
Good Samaritan implicitly extends love to include everybody (Lk. 10:37; cf. 7:47).
3. (a) Paul stands entirely in the line of OT tradition when he speaks of the love
of God. agapé is for him electing love, as is indicated by his use of agapétos, “‘the
chosen one’’. This adjective is commonly used by Paul, but is entirely lacking in
Jn., as is also the vb. kaled (— call). Rom. 9:13 ff. and 11:28 show in particular
how Paul’s thought links up with the Israelite election-tradition. The k/étoi (‘‘called’’)
are the agapétoi (“beloved”’) (Rom. 1:7; Col. 3:12). As in the OT the motive for
the election is God’s love, which can also be rendered by eleos or eleed (— Mercy).
(The LXX translates the root rhm sometimes by e/eed, sometimes by agapad.) This
love becomes a revealing activity in Jesus Christ’s saving work (Rom. 5:8; 8:35 ff.).
The circle of — guilt, wrath (~ Anger) and — judgment is broken through, for in
Jesus Christ God appears as love. Indeed this love comes to be predicated of Jesus
Christ himself (e.g. Gal. 2:20; 2 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 5:2). The contrasting concept in
Paul is orgé, wrath (— Anger). Men under the law find themselves on a direct road
leading to the wrathful judgment of God; from this destiny God in his electing
love rescues those who believe (1 Thess. 1:10). Now if God’s action can be defined
as love (in 2 Cor. 13:11, 13 God and his love are used synonymously), then the
great love song of 1 Cor. 13 can be understood not merely as a chapter of ethics,
but as a description of all God’s activity. In place of the word “love” we can put the
name of Jesus Christ (cf. K. Barth, CD I 2, 379). This does not mean that God
becomes the ‘“‘good Lord” who lets anything pass; for there is still the possibility
of disbelief and there is still the judgment to come. But God’s righteousness is
realized in the fact that the beloved Son stands in the place of the unrighteous (cf.
2 Cor. 5:18 ff.).
544
LOVE
The electing love of God is also in the background of Eph. 5:22 ff., where the
relationship between man and wife is compared with the love of Christ for the
church. There are two points of contact here. On the one hand, there is the election
of — Israel (cf. Rom. 9); the church is the called-out body, the new Israel which
has come to faith in Christ. On the other hand, there is the OT picture of marriage
dating from the time of Hosea with the implication of a relationship of fidelity and
covenant love. What is true for the Christian community is true also for the
individual, and is also true for marriage. God’s love is able to overcome every kind
of difficulty and infidelity. Electing love is at the same time compassionate and
forgiving love.
Certainty of salvation consists in knowing that God’s loving activity, of which the
resurrection is the final seal, is stronger than any other power including even >
death (Rom. 8:37 ff.; 1 Cor. 15:55 ff.). The — resurrection is the crowning act of
God’s love. In it is displayed the victory over these forces (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19 ff.; on
Katallagé —> Reconciliation).
(b) A believer is a sinner who is loved by God. When he realizes this, he enters
the sphere of God’s love. He himself becomes loving. Hence, also in Paul love for
God and love for one’s neighbour derive from God’s own love.
It is this love of God, poured into our hearts by the Spirit, that moves believers
(Rom. 5:5; 15:30). Man’s response to God’s saving act is described by Paul mostly
as pistis (—> faith) or gnosis (~ knowledge), but also frequently as agapé (cf. Eph.
3:19; 1 Cor. 8:3). Through the Spirit, knowing God and being known by him
become the same thing. The same applies to being loved by, and loving, God (Gal.
4:9). Those who are known by God know him. Similarly, with agapé, the faith
which knows that it is loved (Rom. 8:37) is active in love (Gal. 5:6; 1 Thess. 3:6).
Thus love can be said to be the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22); faith and love in
fact are often mentioned side by side (e.g. 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:6; 5:8; Eph. 6:23; 1
Tim. 1:14).
The formula en Christo, “‘in Christ’’, speaks of the existence of the believer in the
sphere of the love of God. When I am “in Christ”’ or Christ is “in me’’, this love
has taken hold of me and is making me, a believing person, into a loving person
(cf. Gal. 2:20; 1 Tim. 1:14). As someone who loves, a believer is a new — creation
(kainé ktisis, 2 Cor. 5:17) who finds his origin in the love of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14
with v. 17).
(c) Paul, therefore, characterizes love for one’s neighbour as love for one’s —>
brother in the faith (Gal. 5:6). 1 Cor. 13 summarizes everything to be said here.
There agapé is always both God’s love and man’s love. Love stands over every
power and authority introducing and encircling the whole. ({Ed.] In a study of the
phrase fa tria tauta, “these three things’”’, and meizon de touton hé agapé, “‘but [the]
greatest of these [is] love’, R. P. Martin asks: ‘‘May it not be, then, that this tre-
mendous chapter ends on the note of an unexpected climax, as though Paul were
saying, Excellent as are the features of this well-known triad, with love the still
outstanding trait, there is something greater still, the love of God expressed in
Jesus Christ our Lord?” [A suggested Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:13”, ExpT 82,
1970-71, 120].) prophéteia, prophecy, and pistis, faith (v. 2), elpis, hope (v. 7), and
gnosis, knowledge (v. 8), are subordinated to it not, however, as gradations of
lessening importance, but as component parts of that one powerful force which
545
LOVE
permeates and animates everything. In the context of 1 Cor. love is the greatest of
the gifts of the Spirit, however readily Paul puts pneuma — Spirit and agapé side
by side elsewhere (Gal. 5:13-—22; 1 Cor. 14:1). 1 Cor. also makes it clear that love
is the force which holds a Christian community together and builds it up. Without
love, no — fellowship or shared life is possible (1 Cor. 14:1; 16:14; Eph. 1:15;
3:17 ff.). The séma Christou, body of Christ, is built up by love (1 Cor. 8:1; 2
Thess. 1:3; Phil. 2:1 f.; Eph. 4:16; Col. 2:2). When Paul offers the church the
example of his own love he is calling them back again to their fellowship in the
love of God (2 Cor. 2:4; 8:7).
Paul also takes up the command of the OT and of Jesus to love (Rom. 13:8 ff.;
Gal. 5:14), thus setting agapé alongside pistis, and over against the nomos (>
Law). The law has been fulfilled, because Jesus is love, and has died for sinners
Insofar, therefore, as Christians love one another they too fulfil the law, not in the
sense that they attain any perfection, but that they are now living in God’s new
reality through the strengthening power of — forgiveness. agapé is a reflection of
what is still to come (1 Cor. 13:9, 12, 13).
4. (a) In John, God’s nature and activity are illustrated with particular clarity
by his use of agapé. That partly arises from the fact that agapé is used here more
frequently than in Paul in its absolute form — i.e. as a noun with no gen., or as a vb.
with no object. Parallel ideas such as dikaiosyné (righteousness), charis (grace) and
eleos (mercy) recede somewhat in favour of agapé. John can thus speak of pre-
existent love in the same way that he speaks in Jn. 1:1 ff. of the pre-existent Jogos
(— Word; cf. Jn. 3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23 ff.). God is essentially love (1 Jn. 4:8),
and his purpose right from the beginning has been one of love. The love of the
Father for the Son is therefore the archetype of all love. This fact is made visible in
the sending and self-sacrifice of the Son (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 3:1, 16). For men to “‘see”’
and “know” this love is to be saved. God’s primary purpose for the world is his
compassionate and forgiving love which asserts itself despite the world’s inimical
rejection of it. In God’s agapé his — glory (doxa) is simultaneously revealed.
Love’s triumph is seen in the doxasthénai of Jesus, i.e. his glorification: his death
which here includes his return to the Father (Jn. 12:16, 23 ff.). The believer, taken
up into this victory, receives z0é, life (cf. 1 Jn. 4:9; Jn. 3:36; 11:25 ff.).
(b) If Paul’s word for describing the way men turn to God is pistis, John’s is
agapé. The relationship between Father and Son is one of love (Jn. 14:31). In this
relationship of love believers are included (Jn. 14:21 ff.; 17:26; 15:9 f.). They are
to love Father and Son with an equal love (Jn. 8:42; 14:21 ff.; 1 Jn. 4:16, 20). The
continual oscillation between the subject and object of love in John shows that the
Father, the Son, and the believers are all united in the one reality of divine love:
the alternative to which is death (1 Jn. 3:14 ff.; 4:7f.). The typical Johannine
phrase menein en, remain in, can refer equally to Jesus or to love (Jn. 15:4 ff.;
1 Jn. 4:12 ff).
(c) In John, mutual love is grounded even more clearly than in Paul in the love
of God (Jn. 13:34; 1 Jn. 4:21). Love is a sign and a proof of faith (1 Jn. 3:10;
4:7 ff.). Love of one’s brother derives from God’s love; and without love for one’s
brother, there can be no relationship with God.
John, in turn, takes up the command to love (Jn. 13:34; 15:12, 17; 2 Jn. 5). To
love is to keep the law (Jn. 14:23 f.).
546
LOVE
5. (a) Finally, love found expression for itself in early Christian circles by way
of the kiss of fellowship, which was a regular part of the worship of the congrega-
tion (e.g. Rom. 16:16 “with a holy kiss [en philémati hagio|’’). In 1 Pet. 5:14 it is
called the “‘kiss of love [en philémati agapés]|’’; but practically no details of this
rite are known (— phileo nT 3).
(b) agapé is also the word used for one of the early Christian ceremonies which
we only know about by way of allusion. 1 Cor. 11 shows that the actual celebration
of the Lord’s Supper was linked with a normal meal. Later the “‘love feast” (agapé)
became separated from the — Lord’s Supper itself, and celebrated in its own right
(cf. Jude 12; perhaps also 2 Pet. 2:13; Ign., Smy. 8:2; Clem.Alex., Paedogogus 2, 1;
cf. Lampe, 8). The difference seems to be that whereas the centre both of a service
of preaching and of the Lord’s Supper was the joyous declaration of faith, the
common meal had its central significance in celebrating and displaying the especial
—> fellowship which they shared in their agapé. It also seems certain that this service
provided an opportunity for congregations to give practical expression to their
love in generous social action (cf. Acts 6:1 ff.).
(c) Evidence that the new community based on agapé understood itself as the
family of God is provided by the variety of names used for brothers and sisters in
the early church (— Brother, art. adelphos). W. Giinther, H.-G. Link
ae didéw (philed), be fond of, love; didoc (philos), a relative,
| bio friend; didia (philia), friendship, love; Katadidéw
(kataphiled), to kiss; diAnua (philéma), a kiss; ¢1Aade/ dia (philadelphia), brotherly
love; ¢diAavO pwnia (philanthropia), love for mankind, hospitality.
CL phileo is the regular word from Homer onwards for to show affection, love,
hospitality, etc. It can also be used with less precision and colour to mean: be
accustomed to, be in the habit of; and then, when joined with other vbs. to do
something gladly, customarily, generally. It is also commonly used with more
specific meanings. There is a very large number of words compounded from phil-
e.g. philoxenia, hospitality (cf. Liddell-Scott, 1935-42). philos, attested in Mycenaean
Gk., and originally meaning dear, expensive, valuable, became the ordinary expres-
sion for a friend or relative; philé similarly means a female friend. philia is a later
abstraction meaning friendship, love, devotion, favour; philéma is a love token, a
kiss.
oT In the LXX we are presented with a completely different picture. philed occurs
rarely, whereas the vb. agapaod, and the noun agapé (otherwise almost entirely
unknown in Gk.) are everywhere to be found. It is not possible to say whether they
are used according to set rules, for philed (30 times), like agapaod (c. 263 times),
generally translates Heb. ’ahéb (e.g. Gen. 27:4 ff.; 37:4[cf. 37:3]; Isa. 56:10,
Prov. 8:17[cf. 8:21]). Whereas Heb. has a whole range of different words to
express the contrary concept of the hate (but the LXX has only the one word miseé
(— Enemy, art. mised), it has virtually only the one root form ’ahéb at its disposal
for the range of feelings associated with love. Gk., on the other hand, has several
roots and derived words to express the various nuances of love. philia (38 times),
generally translating ’ahéb, ’ah*bah, is comparatively rare, though philos (c. 181
547
LOVE
times), generally translating réa‘, though often without Heb. equivalent, is more
common in the LXX. As an alternative plésion, neighbour, mainly used to indicate
relatives or friends (c. 221 times, often for réa‘), and occasionally hetairos, friend
(c. 27 times), are used (— Brother arts. ho plésion and hetairos).
NT In the NT the vb. phileé occurs in Matt. (5 times) and Jn. (13 times); elsewhere
there are only individual instances (7 in all). The distinction from — agapadé
is not strictly adhered to. The nouns philos or philé are used for friends, and also for
people bound together in — faith; as an adjective philos is not found at all. philéma
is a kiss, and in the Epistles a Christian form of greeting, the “holy kiss’. The noun
philia only appears in the NT in Jas. 4:4.
1. (a) A typical example for the original meaning of philed can be seen in Matt.
6:5: the hypocrites love to pray at street corners. Matt. 23:6 and Lk. 20:46 are
similar cases. The use of agapao in Lk. 11:43, and Lk. 20:46 in a similar context, is
an exception, showing how the difference in meaning is not always maintained.
Matt. 10:37 is another typical example, love here deriving from family connections:
“He who loves [ho philon] father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and
he who loves [ho philén] son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” We
have here, incidentally, a statement which has a theological importance in indicating
the transition to a theological meaning of the word; for the phraseology, introduc-
ing the comparison, points implicitly to a love for Jesus, which is elsewhere des-
cribed as agapé, the gift of God’s rule. The starting-point of the statement, however,
remains the natural love shared between relatives. But, clearly, when the — king-
dom of God breaks in, even the usual family ties and links of friendship may be
dissolved for the benefit of the new fellowship of the family of God (— Brother,
art. adelphos).
(b) Jn. characterizes love according to whether the — world is viewed as God’s
creation, or as the sphere of enmity towards God. Where the world is viewed as
God’s creation, natural creaturely love has its legitimate place. Thus Jn. 11:3, 36
speak of Jesus’ bond of friendship with Lazarus. But Jn. also sees the kosmos as
the sphere of darkness which opposes God. Viewed thus, love in or for the kosmos
is the same as hatred for God’s revelation (15:19; cf. Jas. 4:4). 1 Jn. 2:15 is directed
against such people: “‘do not love the world, or anything in it,” i.e. ““do not love
God-lessness.’’ But since God loves the creation which hates him, in order to save
it (3:16), the other imperative also holds: “‘He gave us this command: whoever
loves God must love his brother too.” Love for one’s brothers as God’s creations
makes concrete one’s love for the world, which is also the creation of God.
The scene with Peter in Jn. 21:15 ff. makes it clear that philed and agapad cannot
always be neatly distinguished. Verses 15, 16 distinguish the agapao in Jesus’ mouth
from the phileo in Peter’s, but in v. 17 this distinction ceases. Nor is it possible to
draw any particular exegetical consequences from this scene. Jn. 5:20 and 16:27
are the only places where phileo is predicated of God. Both times it is God the Father
who is spoken of, since relationships between people become pictures of relation-
ships within the divine being.
(c) There is a single, yet important, Pauline example of the use of philed, in 1
Cor. 16:22. Love for the kyrios, — Lord, is the condition of salvation. The whole
history of the word would have led one to expect agapad. Again the impossibility
548
LOVE
of rigid distinctions is clear. As to content, clearly the meaning is that of agapé
elsewhere. Tit. 3:15, too, can only be correctly understood when it is born in mind
that through God’s love in the revelation of the Son, human love understood as love
in faith requires a new interpretation (cf. on this the varying translation of Prov.
3:11 in Heb. 12:6 [agapad] and Rev. 3:19 [phileo]). For philed, meaning to kiss
(Mk. 14:14), see below 3, on philéma.
2. philos is also in the NT a friend to whom one is under a basic obligation (cf.
Lk. 7:6; 11:5 f.; 14:10, 12; 15:6, 9, 29; 23:12; Jn. 11:11; Acts 10:24; 19:31; 27:3).
Relatives (syngeneis) and friends are often mentioned alongside each other. But
neither in Gk. nor in Jewish tradition can any firm distinction be upheld; and when
philoi, friends, are sometimes mentioned, relatives are clearly often to be included.
philos is also used, as in Lk. 16:9, for people linked by some inclination or rela-
tionship; Jesus here advises people to win friends for themselves by giving away
their worldly wealth (— Possessions, art. mamonas). The same point is made when
Pilate is threatened in Jn. 19:12 with losing his honorary title of ‘“‘friend of Caesar”’
(philos tou kaisaros; Lat. amicus Caesaris). By way of contrast, philos can be used
to express God’s love for the godless. In Matt. 11:19 and Lk. 7:34 Jesus is called
the ‘friend of sinners and tax-collectors.’’ He loves them, though they are enemies,
just as God loves the world which hates him. That is also what is meant when Jesus
addressed his disciples as “friends” (Lk. 12:4; Jn. 15:14 f.). They come to him as
sinners, and become his friends through his sacrificial love. (Jn. 15:13). So now,
instead of the love and friendship they enjoyed while belonging to the world (Jas.
4:4), they belong to the new fellowship of the kingdom of God, or the family of:
God, in which they are brothers and friends of Jesus and children of the Father
(Lk. 21:16; cf. also Jas. 2:23, where — Abraham because of his faith is called a
philos theou). Brothers and sisters in faith can therefore be greeted as philoi (3 Jn.
15). For Jn. 3:29 philos tou nymphiou, “‘friend of the bridegroom’’, — Marriage, art.
nymphé.
3. philéma is a kiss. For the vb. phileé and kataphileo are both used in the NT.
The kiss was a common courtesy greeting amongst the Rabbis; and Judas’ kiss was
of this nature (Matt. 26:48 f.; Mk. 14:44 f.; Lk. 22:47). He addresses Jesus honor-
-ifically as Rabbi. Again, in the story of the woman who was a sinner (Lk. 7:36 ff.),
the kiss was a sign of respect for Jesus. Whether at the same time there is a hint or
reference to the Jewish kiss of farewell depends on the decisions one reaches in
comparing this scene with the anointing in Bethany (Matt. 26:6 ff.; Mk. 14:3 ff.).
The kiss in the ancient world was both a friendly sign of greeting and an emo-
tional token of farewell (cf. Lk. 15:20; Acts 20:37 where kataphileo is used). In the
early Christian congregations it became a philéma hagion, a holy kiss. Those who
have been incorporated into the fellowship of the love of God are hagioi (> Holy,
art. hagios) in being children of God, and can greet one another as such (Rom.
16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14 philéma agapés, kiss
of love). W. Giinther
4. The following compounds occur in the NT: philagathos, loving what is good
(1 Tim. 1:8); philadelphia, brotherly love, love of a brother or sister (Rom. 12:10;
1 Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13:1; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2 Pet. 1:7); philadelphos, loving one’s brother
or sister (1 Pet. 3:8); philandros, loving one’s husband (Tit. 2:4); philanthrdépia,
549
LOVE
love for mankind (Tit. 3:4), hospitality (Acts 28:2); philanthrépds, benevolently,
kindly (Acts 27:3); philargyria, love of money, avarice (1 Tim. 6:10); philargyros,
fond of money, avaricious (Lk. 16:14; 2 Tim. 3:2); philautos, loving oneself,
selfish (2 Tim. 3:2); philédonos, loving pleasure (2 Tim. 3:4); philotheos, loving
God, devout, in a play on words with philédonos (2 Tim. 3:4); philon(e)ikia,
dispute (Lk. 22:24); philon(e)ikos, quarrelsome (1 Cor. 11:16); philoxenia, hos-
pitality (Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2); philoxenos, hospitable (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:8;
1 Pet. 4:9); philopréteud, wish to be the first (3 Jn. 9); philosophia, philosophy
(Col. 2:8); philosophos, philosopher (Acts 17:18); philostorgos, loving dearly
(Rom. 12:10); philoteknos, loving one’s children (Tit. 2:4); philotimeomai, con-
sider as an honour, aspire (Rom. 15:20; 2 Cor. 5:9; 1 Thess. 4:11); philophronos,
in a friendly manner (Acts 28:7); philophron, well-disposed, friendly (1 Pet. 3:8
TR).
In addition there are the following names: Philadelph(e)ia, Philadelphia, the
city in Lydia in Asia Minor mentioned in the sixth letter of Rev. (1:11; 3:7)
and in the letter of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, founded by Attalus II
Philadelphus (159-138 B.c.); Philémon, Philemon, a Christian probably at Colossae
whose runaway slave, Onesimus, was won for Christianity by Paul and was sent
back to Philemon with the letter that bears his name urging clemency; Philétos,
Philetus, who is mentioned with Hymenaeus (2 Tim. 2:17) as teaching that the
resurrection is already past (v. 18); Philippésios, Philippian (Phil. 4:15); Philippoi,
Philippi, city of Macedonia, founded on the site of Crenides by Philip II of Macedon
in 356, the first European city to hear Christian missionaries, Paul and Silas (Acts
16:12); it is also mentioned in Acts 20:6; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 2:2; Philippos,
Philip (lit. fond of horses, horse-lover); (i) Philip Herod I, son of Herod the Great
and the younger Mariamne (Matt. 14:33; Mk. 6:17) whose wife left him for his
half-brother, Herod Antipas, who beheaded John the Baptist; (11) Philip Herod I,
son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, the Tetrarch (Matt. 16:13;
Mk. 8:27; Lk. 3:1); (1ii) Philip the disciple and apostle (Matt. 10:3; Mk. 3:18;
Lk. 6:14; Jn. 1:44-47, 49; 6:5, 7; 12:21 f.; 14:8 f.; Acts 1:13); Gv) Philip, one of
the Seven and later the evangelist (Acts 6:5; 8:5—40; 21:8); Philologos, Philologus
(lit. lover of learning), a recipient of greetings in Rom. 16:15, possibly the leader of
a house church (cf. vv. 5, 10 f.). C. Brown
—> Anger, — Brother, — Command, — Gift, — Grace, — Hope, — Law, — Mercy,
—> Samaritan
(a). A. Barr, ‘‘Love in the Church: A Study of First Corinthians, Chapter 13”, S/T 3, 1950, 416—
25; K. Barth, ‘““The Love of God”, CD I, 2, 371-401; and ‘“‘The Holy Spirit and Christian Love’’,
CD IV, 2, 727-840; G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 1960, 109-17; and ‘“‘The More Excellent
Way (I Corinthians 13)’, Early Christian Experience, 1969, 180-90; C. L. Bowen, “Love in the
Fourth Gospel”, JR 13, 1933, 39-49; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952; II, 1955
(see index); and ‘“‘To Love Your Neighbour’’, Scottish Periodical |, 1947, 41-56; T. G. Bunch, Love:
A Comprehensive Exposition of I Corinthians 13, 1952; W. G. Cole, Sex and Love in the Bible,
1960; M. C. D’Arcy, The Mind and Heart of Love, 19474; J. D. M. Derrett, ‘““The Parable of the
Good Samaritan”, Law in the New Testament, 1970, 208-27; J. Ferguson, Moral Values in the
Ancient World, 1958; V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament, 1969; J. Gaer,
Love in the New Testament, 1952; A. E. Goodman, “hsd and twdh in the Linguistic Tradition of the
Psalter’, in P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars, eds., Words and Meaning: Essays Presented to David
Winton Thomas, 1968, 105-16; W. Harrelson, ‘““The Idea of Agape in the New Testament’,
Journal of Religion, 31 1951, 169-82; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 1963, 202 ff.; C. S. Lewis,
550
LOVE
The Four Loves, 1960; W. Lillie, “The Christian Conception of Love’, SJT 12, 1959, 226-42
(reprinted in Studies in New Testament Ethics, 1961, 163-81); U. Luck, philanthrdpia etc., TDNT
IX 107-12; R. P. Martin, ““A Suggested Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:13”, ExpT 82, 1970-71,
119 f.; J. Moffatt, Love in the New Testament, 1929; H. Montefiore, ‘“Thou Shalt Love Thy
Neighbour as Thyself’’, NovT 5, 1962, 157-70; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros: Part I A Study of the
Christian Idea of Love: Part II The History of the Christian Idea of Love, 19537; G. Outka, Agape:
An Ethical Analysis, Yale Publications in Religion 17, 1972; G. Quell and E. Stauffer, agapa6, etc.,
TDNT I 21-55; C. E. Raven, Jesus and the Gospel of Love, 19427; C. H. Roberts, ‘“‘AGAPE in the
Invocation of Isis (P. Oxy xi 1380)’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 39, 1953, 114; and “‘The
Use of AGAPE in P. Oxy 1380. A Reply’, JTS New Series 19, 1968, 209 ff.; J. T. Sanders, ‘‘First
Corinthians 13: Its Interpretation Since the First World War’’, Interpretation 20, 1966, 159-87;
O. J. F. Seitz, ““Love your Enemies’’, NTS 16, 1969-70, 39-54; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas
of the Old Testament, 1944, 94-142; C. Spica, Agape in the New Testament, I-III, 1963-66; G. Stahlin,
phileo etc., TDNT TX 113-71; K. Stendahl, ‘“‘Hate, Retaliation, and Love’, HTR 55, 1962, 343-55;
E. F. Sutcliffe, ““Hatred at Qumran’, Revue de Qumran 2, 1969-60, 345-55; B. B. Warfield, ‘“‘The
Terminology of Love in the New Testament’’, Princeton Theological Review 16, 1918, 1-45 and
153-203; V. Warnach, ‘“‘Love’’, EBT II 518-42; D. D. Williams, The Spirit and Forms of Love, 1968.
(b). G. Bornkamm, ‘‘Das Doppelgebot der Liebe’, Neutestamentliche Studien fiir Rudolf Bultmann
BZNW 21, 1954, 85-93; H. Braun, Spdtjiidisch-haretischer und frithchristlicher Radikalismus, \-II,
BHTh 24, 1957; F. Buck, Die Liebe Gottes beim Propheten Osee, 1953; J. Coppens, ‘‘La doctrine
biblique sur l'amour de Dieu et du prochain”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 11, 1964,
252-99; F. X. Durwell, La charité selon les Synoptiques et les Epitres de S. Paul, 1955; F. Frerichs,
‘Liebe’, EKL II 1096 ff. ; E. Fuchs, ““Was heisst : ‘Dusollst deinen Nachsten lieben wie dich selbst’ ?’’,
Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus: Gesammelte Aufsdatze, II, 19657, 1 ff.; H. Gollwitzer, Das
Gleichnis vom barmherzigen Samariter, BSt 34, 1062; H. Greeven, plésion, TDNT VI 316 ff.; G.
Harbsmeier, Das Hohelied der Liebe 1952; E. Jenni, ’ahab THAT I 60-73; R. Joly, Le Vocabulaire
chretien del’ Amour, est-il Originel? Philein et Agapan dans le Grec Antique, 1968; R. Kiefer, ‘‘ ‘Afin
que je sois brulé’ ou bien ‘Afin que j’en tire orgueil’? (1 Cor. xiii 3)”, NTS 22, 1975-76, 95 ff.; N.
Lohfink, ‘“‘Auslegung deuteronomistischer Texte IJ. Ein Kommentar zum Hauptgebot des Deka-
logs (Dtn. 6, 4—25)’’, Bibel und Leben 5, 1964, 84 ff.; O. Loretz, ‘‘Zum Problem des Eros im Hohen-
lied’, BZ 8, 1964, 191-216; W. Liitgert, Die Liebe im Neuen Testament, 1905; and Ethik der Liebe
1938; O. Michel, ‘“‘Das Gebot der Nachstenliebe in der Verktindigung Jesu”, Die soziale, Entschei-
dung, 1947, 53-101; L. Malevez, ‘‘Amour paien, amour chrétien’’, Nouvelle Revue Théologique
69, 1937, 944-68; E. Neuhdusler, Anspruch und Gegenwart Gottes, 1962, 114 ff.; A. Nissen, Gott
und der Nachste im antiken Judentum: Untersuchungen zum Doppelgebot der Liebe, WUNT 15,
1974; T. Ohm, W. Zimmerli, N. A. Dahl and R. Mehl, ‘‘Liebe’’, RGG? IV 361 ff.; M. Paeslack,
‘““Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte der Worter philein, philia, philos in der LXX und im Neuen Testament
unter Beriicksichtigung ihrer Beziehungen zu agapan, agapé, agapétos’’, ThV 5, 1953-54, 51-142;
W. Pesch, “‘Das Liebesgebot in der Verkiindigung Jesu’, Buk 9, 1964, 129 ff.; H. Preisker, Die
urchristliche Botschaft von der Liebe Gottes im Lichte der vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte, 1930;
B. Reicke, “‘Neuzeitliche und neutestamentliche Auffassung von Liebe und Ehe’’, NovT 1, 1956,
21-34; H. Riesenfeld, ““Etude bibliographique sur la Notion biblique d’Agape’’, Coniectanea
Neotestamentica 5, 1941, 1-27; ‘“‘Note bibliographique sur I Cor. XIII’, Nuntius 6, 1952, 47 f.;
and “La Voie de Charité. Note sur I Cor. 12. 31” StTh 1, 1947, 146-57; K. Romaniuk, L’ Amour
du Pére et du Fils dans la Sotériologie de Saint Paul, 1961; R. Sanders, Furcht und Liebe im pala-
stinischen Judentum, BWANT IV, 16, 1935; O. Schilling, ‘““Die alttestamentliche Auffassung von
Gerechtigkeit und Liebe”, Wort des Lebens (Festschrift M. Meinertz), 1951, 9-27; H. Schlier,
‘““Uber die Liebe: 1 Kor. 13”, Die Zeit der Kirche, 1956, 186-92; and ‘“‘Glauben, Erknnen, Lieben
nach dem Johannesevangelium’’, Besinnung auf das Neue Testament, 1964, 279-93; H. Scholz,
Eros und Caritas, 1929; H. Schirmann, “‘Eschatologie und Liebesdienst in der Verkiindigung
Jesu’, in K. Schubert, ed., Vom Messias zum Christus, 1964, 203 ff.; W. C. van Unnik, “Die
Motivierung der Feindesliebe in Lk. 6, 32-35”, NovT 8, 1966, 284 ff.; E. Walter, Glaube, Hoffnung
und Liebe im Neuen Testament, 1940; and Wesen und Macht der Liebe, 1955; V. Warnach, Agape.
Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1951.
551
Magic, Sorcery, Magi
| payeia | mEpiepyoc (periergos), meddlesome, curious, belonging
to magic; payeia (mageia), magic; wayev@ (mageud),
practise magic; wdyoc (magos), magus, magician; dapyaKeia (pharmakeia), magic,
sorcery; papuaKevc (pharmakeus), mixer of potions, magician; dapyaxKov (phar-
makon), poison, magic potion, charm, medicine, remedy, drug; ¢dpyakoc (phar-
makos), poisoner, magician; yonc (goés), sorcerer, juggler; m00q@v (python), the
Python, spirit of divination; BacKkaiva (baskaind), bewitch; ddvtacua (phantasma),
apparition, ghost.
CL 1. Evidence of magic dating from palaeolithic culture has been found in cave
art depicting animals stuck with darts with a view to causing the same thing to
happen in a future hunt, and in the covering of corpses with red pigment (suggesting
blood, the life-substance) in order to restore them to life. The dividing line between
magic and religion is often indistinct. Sir James Frazer suggested that religion was
characterized by conciliation of superhuman powers, whereas magic is concerned
with the control by man of the forces of nature (The Golden Bough, abridged
edition 1957, I, 67 ff.). Even where magic deals with spirits as personal agents, it
treats them as inanimate in the sense that they can be constrained and forced in an
impersonal way rather than conciliating or propitiating them as in a religion. The
distinction is often drawn between white and black magic. The former is held to
be benevolent in intention (e.g. rain making), whereas the latter is malevolent
causing loss of health, property, destruction and death. Magic may co-exist along-
side a primitive knowledge of the laws of the natural world; it is invoked to deal
with what cannot be controlled by known natural means.
2. Common features of magic are: (i) the spell, the utterance of words according
to a set formula, without which control over the desired power is impossible; (11) the
rite, or set of actions designed to convey the spell to the object concerned, involving
imitation of the desired action or the use of similar substances; and (iii) the condi-
tion of the performer who must not breach any of the relevant taboos and must be
in the requisite emotional state to perform the prescribed actions.
3. Magic is known in Homer, but is doubtless much older. In Od. 19, 457 an
incantation can stop the flow of blood from the wounded Odysseus. Circe has
potions, salves and a magic wand, and is able to teach Odysseus to summon the
shades from the nether world. Magic abounds in Gk. mythology. Among those
accredited with supernatural powers were the Telchines, smiths who lived on the
island of Rhodes who had the evil eye and who bear a resemblance to the dwarfs
and gnomes of north European mythology, the Curetes of Crete who protected the
552
MAGIC
infant Zeus, and the Idaean Dactyls who were likewise dwarfs and who were
masters of medicine and music. The most renowned enchantress of antiquity was
Medea who also had the evil eye and was the prototype of the jilted witch of later
literature (OCD, 637). Both Gk. and Lat. poets and dramatists give pictures of
magic and witchcraft. The growth in knowledge and progress of Gk. civilization led
to the suppression of magic. Nevertheless, as secularization increased in the higher
social levels during the fourth cent. B.c., there was a renewed outburst of interest in
magic in the lower levels.
4. Numerous forms of magic are attested in the Graeco-Roman world. To bring
about the death of a person, one could make an image of that person and destroy it
or pierce it. Plato believed that men could not be prevented from believing in such
homoeopathic magic, or incantations and magic knots, and therefore urged punish-
ment by law including the death penalty (Leg. 933b; cf. also Theocritus 2; Virgil,
Eclogues 8; Ovid, Heroides 6, 91 for such practices). Contagious magic, destroying
something belonging to the victim, is exemplified in Theocritus 2, 53 ff. and Virgil,
Aeneid 4, 494 ff. The attempt to transfer by magic a disease from a person to an
animal is described by the Elder Pliny in his account of whispering into the ear of an
ass, “‘A scorpion has stung me”’ (Naturalis Historia 28, 155). Belief in the apotro-
paic efficacy of rings, crowns and amulets and numerous medical charms was
widespread. Evocation of the spirits of the dead occurs as early as Homer, Od. 1],
and necromancers were a recognized class of magician.
OT 1. The employment of magic not only by men but also by gods is well attested
in Sumero-Akkadian and Canaanite religious literature. Behind it lies the belief
that no single power has ultimate control over the universe. In order to secure the
desired stability and well-being of the world, the gods must also resort to the powers
which they themselves do not possess. In the Babylonian Creation Epic (Enitima
Elis) the hero of the younger gods, Ea-Enki is called the Lord of Incantation and is
regarded as the god of magic par excellence. In his struggle against the primeval
gods Tiamat and Apsu, Ea-Enki killed the latter with the aid of a spell (Tablet I,
60-70; ANET 61; A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, [19517] 1963, 20; cf. H.
Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, 1973, 69 ff.). Ea’s son, Marduk,
employed magic in his fight against the monsters created by Tiamat to avenge Apsu,
holding a red talisman between his lips (Tablet IV, 61; ANET, 66; A. Heidel, op.
cit., 39). Tiamat also recited a charm and kept casting a spell (Tables IV, 91;
ANET, 67; A. Heidel, op. cit., 40). But Marduk, the better magician, proved vic-
torious. Compared with this account of creation, the absence of magic in the
Genesis creation narratives is all the more striking.
In the Akkadian Myth of Zu the vitality of the gods appears to depend on a
talisman carried by their chief (ANET, 111 ff.). The bird-god Zu stole the Tablets
of Destinies and usurped the authority of the gods until vanquished by one of the
benign deities. The gods themselves wear amulets to protect themselves and ensure
victory. Similarly, in the Descent of Ishtar to the Nether World (ANET, 106-9)
Ishtar wore charms.
2. In the case of Canaanite religion the use of magic in healing is illustrated by
the Legend of King Keret who is healed by the magic of El (ANET, 148), and in
fertility by the story of how the goddess Anath avenged the death of her brother
553
MAGIC
at the hands of Mot by slaying Mot, the god of sterility, and scattering his ashes
(ANET 140). However, human beings also were regarded as being endowed with
magical powers and the capacity to tell omens (ANET, 153).
3. For evidence of magic in Egypt see ANET, 325 ff.; K. Preisendanz, ed.,
Papyri Graecae Magicae, I-III], 1928-42; A. H. Gardiner, ERE VIII 262-69. Magic
was under the protection of the leading god, Thoth and Isis, and was learned in
the temple schools. It was a particular province of the priests. The charms included
charms against snakes.
4. The reality of occult powers is recognized in the OT, but the Israelites were
consistently forbidden to become embroiled in any form of magic. The law of
Deut. 18:10-14 observes the various practices of the surrounding peoples, but
prohibits them categorically: ‘““There shall not be found among you any one who
burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practises divination, a
soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard,
or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord;
and because of these abominable practices the Lord your God is driving them out
before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. For these nations,
which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but
as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do so.’’ The key terms here
are: gosém g*samim (Heb.), manteuomenos manteian (Gk.), one who practises
divination (cf. Num. 22:7; 23:23; Jos. 13:22; 1 Sam. 6:2; 15:23; 28:8; 2 Ki.
17:17; Isa. 3:2; 44:25; Jer. 14:14; Ezek. 13:6, 9, 23; 21:26 ff.; Mic. 3:6f., 11;
Zech. 10:2); m*‘6nén (Heb.), klédonizomenos (Gk.), soothsayer (the Heb. means
one who causes to appear, raises spirits, practises soothsaying; cf. Lev. 19:26;
Jdg. 9:37; 2 Ki. 21:6; Isa. 2:6; 57:3; Jer. 27:9; Mic. 5:11; 2 Chron. 33:6); m*nahés
(Heb.), oidnizomenos (Gk.), an augur, one who looks for an omen (cf. Gen. 44:5,
15; Lev. 19:26; 2 Ki. 17:17; 21:6; 2 Chron. 33:6; with Gen. 30:27; Num. 23:23;
24:1; 1 Ki. 20:33); m®kassep (Heb.), pharmakos (Gk.), sorcerer (cf. Exod. 7:11;
22:17; Mal. 3:5; Dan. 2:2; 2 Chron. 33:6; with 2 Ki. 9:22; Isa. 47:9, 12; Mic.
5:11; Nah. 3:4); hobér habér (Heb.), epaeiddn epaidén (Gk.), a charmer, one who
binds spells (cf. Ps. 58:6; Isa. 47:9, 12); S6’él ’6b (Heb.), engastrimythos (Gk.), a
medium (cf. Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1 Sam. 28:3, 7 f:, 9; 2 Ki. 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chron.
10:13; 2 Chron. 33:6; Isa. 8:19; 19:3; 29:4); yidd‘dni (Heb.), teratoskopos (Gk.),
wizard, familiar spirit, soothsayer (Lev. 19:31; 20:6, 27; 1 Sam. 28:3, 9; 2 Ki.
21:6; 23:24; Isa. 8:19; 19:3; 2 Chron. 33:6); dorés ’el hammétim (Heb.), eperdton
tous nekrous (Gk.), necromancer, lit. one who enquires of the dead (ddaras is the
normal Heb. vb. for enquire; it is used in connection with spirits and deities in Isa.
8:19; 11:10; 19:3; an instance of necromancy is given in the story of Saul’s visit
to the medium [Heb. ’éset ba“*lat-’6b; Gk. gyné engastrimythos, 1 Sam. 28:7] at
Endor). The story of the raising of the spirit of Samuel by the medium at Endor
casts no doubt on the reality of what happened, but clearly condemns the venture.
A number of other terms are found elsewhere in the OT. The Heb. vb. /ahas
means to whisper and is used in connection with charms (cf. the piel participle
form m°lah*sim in Ps. 58:6 with 2 Sam. 12:19; Ps. 41:8). The noun /ahas means
whispering, serpent-charming, ““charms”’ (RSV, Isa. 3:3; cf. Jer. 8:17; Eccl. 10:11).
The Gk. word in Isa. 3:3 1s akroatés. The expert in charms figures among those
who were currently held in esteem in Israel and who held sway over the people in
554
MAGIC
Isaiah’s day; in the name of the Lord the prophet announced their removal. The
same applies to the h*kam h’rdasim, “‘the skilful magician” which is only found in
Isa. 3:3. The LXX removes the magical element from both these terms by rendering
them sophon architektona kai syneton akroatén (“skilful architect and intelligent
scholar’’). But the magical element in heres can be seen in Aramaic and Syriac
parallels, and may be traced back to Ugaritic as an old West Semitic word (cf. I.
Mendelsohn, ‘‘Magic’’, DB III 225). Isa. 47:13 mentions hdbré samayim (LXX
astrologoi tou ouranou) “‘those who divide the heavens” and hahozim bakkékabim
(LXX hoi horontes tous asteras) “‘those who gaze at the stars’’, a scornful reference
to the influence of Babylonian astrology. Astrology was also practised in Egypt,
but there are relatively few references to it in the OT (cf. Jer. 10:2 with Dan. 2:27;
4:7 [4:4]; 5:7, 11). The hartom (plur. hartummim) were soothsayer priests. Egyptian
ones are mentioned in Gen. 41:8, 24 (LXX exégétés; — Explain, art. exégeomai);
Exod. 7:11, 22; 8:3, 14f.; 9:11 (the LXX uses pharmakos for hartom, though it
also uses the word for other Heb. words). Babylonian ones are mentioned in Dan.
1:20; 2:2. Dan. 1:20 and 2:20 also mention ’asSapim, conjurors, enchanters who
were likewise summoned to retell and interpret the — dreams of Nebuchadnezzar.
But the task proved beyond them, and it was Daniel who was able to declare the
king’s dreams. Isa. 19:3 contains the unique word ’ittim, in the plur., for the shades
or ghosts of a dead person. I. Mendelsohn maintains that the various forms of
magic not mentioned in the law of Deut. 18:10 f. represent Egyptian and Baby-
lonian practice and that h’rdsim and kissép and its cognates (Exod. 7:11; 22:17;
Deut. 18:10; Mal. 5:5; Dan. 2:2; 2 Chron. 33:6) were the Heb. generic names for
magic in all its aspects (JDB III 224f.; cf. Exod. 22:18; 2 Ki. 9:22; Nah. 3:4).
The practice of sorcery is mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi who belonged
to the Old Babylonian Amorite Dynasty and who ruled from 1728 to 1686 B.c.,
though the copy of the Code preserved on a stele is sometime later. Paragraph 2 of
the Code specified the death penalty for those guilty of sorcery and equally those
who make false accusations of sorcery (ANET, 166). The test in both cases was to
cast the person accused into the Euphrates. If he survived it was to be taken as
a divine vindication of innocence. The Middle Assyrian laws preserved on clay
tablets also laid down the death penalty for those guilty of making magical pre-
parations (§47; cf. ANET, 184). The king himself was to investigate cases and false
accusations. The OT saw magic as a potential rival to the worship of Yahweh
and a threat to the well-being of the people. It was forbidden by law and those who
practised it were to be put to death (Exod. 22:18 [MT 22:17]; Lev. 19:26, 31;
20:6, 27; cf. Mic. 5:12). As the passage already quoted from Deut. 18:10-14
shows, magical practices were ranked with human sacrifice as evil and an abomina-
tion to the Lord (cf. also 2 Ki. 17:17; 2 Chron. 33:6). It was denounced by the
prophets as lies and deception (Isa. 44:25; 57:3; Jer. 27:9 f.; Ezek. 22:28; Zech.
10:2; Mal. 3:5). Jezebel was condemned as a sorceress (2 Ki. 9:22), and Ma-
nasseh’s apostate practices included various forms of magic, soothsaying and
human sacrifice (2 Ki. 21:3-6). His grandson Josiah, however, “‘put away the med-
iums and the wizards and the teraphim and the idols and all the abominations that
were seen in the land of Judah and Jerusalem, that he might establish the words
of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house
of the Lord” (2 Ki. 23:24).
555
MAGIC
6. The most significant evidence of magic in the Hellenistic world is to be found
in the papyri from Egypt which date from the 3rd and 4th cents. A.D. The most
important of these have been edited by Karl Preisendanz (see bibliography; see
also table of abbreviations for other papyri). Early important references to magic
include the Apology of Apuleius, written in the middle of the 2nd cent. a.p., De
Mysteriis by Iamblichus (early 4th cent. A.D.), the Elder Pliny (died A.p. 79),
Naturalis Historia, which contains numerous magical recipes and exorcisms, and
the writings of Lucian of Samosata (born c. A.D. 120). In addition numerous cursing
tablets, inscriptions often on thin sheets of lead known as tabellae defixionum,
amulets, and ostraca have been found, The papyri often refer to laurel wreaths,
earthen altars, white garments, all of which have naturally perished, and also to
tables, discs, dishes, lamps and stands some of which have survived. For a survey of
data, literature and practices see J. M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic
Tradition, SBT Second Series 28, 1974, 5-44. Magic in the Hellenistic world was a
fusion of the Gk. spirit with Egyptian influences. Among them were the belief that
magic words gained additional power if written on a gem; belief in monstrous
beings, half animal and half human; the belief that whilst magic allows man to
control the gods, it is at the same time a gift and revelation of the gods to men; and
such figures as Seth, Thoth and Osiris. On the other hand, there was also a Persian
influence which included the idea of magic as a defence against evil spirits rather
than as a means of manipulating the high gods. Magical practices were also rife
in Judaism. Justin Martyr testifies to the use of the — name of God in exorcism
(Dial. 85, 3), and the use of Ja, Jao (and numerous variants), Sabaoth, Adonai and
Yahweh is common in the magical papyri. Apart from the divine names, that of >
Moses appears alongside that of Thoth and Zoroaster, and —> Solomon was highly
important. The Heb. language itself, as a sacred language, had a special use.
Angels and demons figured particularly in Jewish magic.
The normal magical ceremony consisted of two parts: the invocation (k/ésis or
epiklésis) and the ritual (praxis). Hull (op. cit., 42f.) lists six features of the
invocation: (i) The invocation proper beginning “I call upon you, I summon you,
come to me, help me...”’; (11) The utterance of the name of the god (though this is
often omitted from the papyri to guard the secret or allow the magician to insert
the name of his choice); (i11) Epithets describing the god; (iv) Descriptions of the
god to increase his benevolence; (v) Remembrances of similar acts performed by
the god, sometimes using substances associated with the act; (vi) The request
itself. The subsequent ritual could take various forms involving the use of amulets,
sacrifices, the mixing of special substances and potions, libations, and secret writing.
Elaborate ceremonies could take several days. C. Brown
NT Magic is the technique of manipulating supernatural or supernormal forces to
attain one’s own ends. It may be a means of bending spirits of various grades
to carry out one’s wishes, or of developing psychic powers so that one can project
an inner force on to some person or situation. There have always been fake magi-
cians, or conjurers in the modern sense of the word, but even the English word
‘“‘conjurer’’ up to the time of Shakespeare had the magical sense of one who bound
spirits or people by invocation. In the light of Acts 19:18, 19 we may assume that in
NT times this was the only sort of magic that interested people. The books that
556
MAGIC
were burnt were books of perierga. The word has the root idea of being concerned
with other people’s business, and is translated — “‘busybodies”’ in 1 Tim. 5:13, but
in Acts 19:18, 19 it has the specific sense of interfering with other people through
magical arts. Thus, while magicians may well have helped out their claims by
trickery, they were primarily concerned with the realm of the psychic and the
occult.
1. The following magicians are named in the NT: (a) Simon, commonly referred
to as Simon Magus (Acts 8 :19-24). He practised spectacular magic in Samaria, but
professed conversion in response to Philip’s preaching. He was astounded by the
manifestations of the Holy Spirit that followed the laying on of hands by Peter
and John, and, being still under the influence of his old ideas, he assumed that the
apostles had some secret technique that he might use as a Christian magician. For
this he was roundly rebuked by Peter.
Early Christian writers speak of him as a heretic of gnostic type, and founder of
the Simonians (e.g. Justin, Apo/. I, 26; Irenaeus, Haer. 1, 16). The Acts of Peter
4,6, 9, 11-18, 23, 31 describe among other things his levitation in flight over Rome,
and his being brought down through the prayers of Peter (cf. Henn. Schn. II 282 ff.,
286, 292, 293-301, 306, 314 f.; cf. also the Acts of Paul, Henn.Schn. II 374).
(b) Bar-Jesus, or Elymas (Acts 13:4-12). A magician on Cyprus in the employ
of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul. He resisted Paul and Barnabas, but was struck
down with temporary blindness. In Acts 13:8 the name Elymas is not intended as a
translation of Bar-Jesus, but as an equivalent of magician (cf. RSV), probably
connected with the Arabic ‘a/im, wise, magician. (On his name see Arndt, 253,
758 f.; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 19527, 256 f.; E. Haenchen, The Acts
of the Apostles, 1971, 398 f.)
(c) Jannes and Jambres are named in 2 Tim. 3:8 as two of the Egyptian magicians
who opposed Moses. They are not named in Exodus, but in one form of another
they occur in Jewish writings (cf. Schiirer III 402 ff.; Arndt, 368). Thus the Baby-
lonian Talmud writes of Yohane and Mamre (Menahoth 85a). Some Lat. and Gk.
MSS have Mambres in 2 Tim. 3:8. Pliny speaks of Jannes and — Moses as magi-
cians in Pharaoh’s court (Nat. Hist. 30, 1 11).
2. The following descriptive words are found in the NT.
(a) perierga, ““magic arts” (Acts 19:19 RSV). Here the reference is to the volun-
tary burning of books by those who had previously practised magic arts at Ephesus.
The act is seen as testimony to the growth and power of the word of the Lord
(19:20) especially as the value of the books was put at fifty thousand pieces of
silver. On this word in other contexts — Busybody.
(b) magos, magus, magician; mageia, magic; mageud, practise magic. According
to Herodotus (1, 101; cf. 1, 132), the Magians were originally Medians who became
priests under the Persian empire. Like the Chaldeans of Dan. 1:4 and 2:2 ff., they
merged their racial identity in their profession, and their name was applied to any
practitioner such as Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:6, 8; see above | (b)). They are referred to in
Josephus, Ant. 10, 216; 20, 142. The term is used of the Magi who came from the
East at the birth of Jesus (Matt. 2:1-16).
D. Hill regards the account of the visit of the Magi as a piece of haggadic poetry
(The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 82 f.). He takes the star not as a literal star, but as a
messianic interpretation of Num. 24:17: ‘“‘a star shall come forth fanaieler astron|
557
MAGIC
out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel.’ In the OT this passage forms
part of an oracle of Balaam to Balak, king of Moab, who attempted to bar the way
of the people of Israel as they journeyed from Egypt. The messianic interpretation
is attested in the Qumran literature (CD 7:19 f.; 1QM 11:6; 1QSb 5:27; 4Qtest
12 f.) and in the Pseudepigrapha (Test.Lev. 18:3 f.; Test. Jud. 24:1). It was also
applied to Bar Kokhba whose name means “‘Son of a Star’ (— Israel or 2 (c); >
Jesus Christ, art. christos oT 5), and the text appears to underlie a Christian testi--
monium (cf. Rev. 22:16; 2 Pet. 1:19; Justin, Dial. 106, 4; 126, 1; Irenaeus, Haer. 3,
9, 2). The LXX version of Num. 24:7 already bears traces of messianic interpre-
tation. The difficult Heb. text (“Water shall flow from his buckets’’) is replaced by
‘““A man shall come forth from his seed.” This makes it possible to refer the next
verse (“God brings him out of Egypt’’) to the messiah rather than to Israel. A
midrashic interpretation of the visit of the magi is also offered by M. D. Goulder
who sees various other motifs such as the coming of the Gentiles, the gifts and the
name of Joseph as contributing to the story (Midrash and Lection in Matthew, 1974,
236 ff.).
On the other hand, the story has usually been taken to refer to an actual celestial
phenomenon. Kepler suggested that the star was a conjunction of Jupiter and
Saturn in the constellation Pisces in 7 B.c. For a discussion of views concerning the
star see B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 1955, 112-18; H.
Montefiore, Josephus and the New Testament, 1962, 8-14; ~ also Sun, Moon,
Stars for the theological significance of heavenly bodies. The magi were clearly
not crude practitioners of the occult arts, nor were they ordinary astrologers. They
believed that God showed signs in heaven and that a certain heavenly body, whether
planet, star, comet, or supernova, indicated from its appearance and position that
God had fulfilled the royal promise, of which they had doubtless heard from Jews
in the East (cf. E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, 1960, 36 ff.).
The noun mageia and the vb. mageuo are found in Acts 8:11 and 9 respectively
of the magic of Simon Magus (see above | (a)).
(c) pharmakos, magician (Rev. 22:15); pharmakeus, mixer of potions, magician
(Rev. 21:8); pharmakeia, magic, sorcery (Gal. 5:20; Rev. 9:21; 18:23). The basic
word pharmakon does not occur in the NT, but its meaning of medicine, magic
potion, poison gives the underlying idea of the words. Potions include poisons,
but there has always been a magical tradition of herbs gathered and prepared for
spells, and also for encouraging the presence of spirits at magical ceremonies (cf.
possibly the final sentence of Ezek. 8:17: “They put the branch to their nose’’).
Sorcery is classed among the works of the — flesh in Gal. 5:20.
(d) goés, sorcerer, juggler, occurs only in 2 Tim. 3:13. In cl. Gk. it may mean a
magician, probably from the root seen in goad, wail. A wizard might chant his
spells. In 2 Tim. 3:13 magicians may be the correct translation in view of Jannes
and Jambres in v. 8 (see above | (c)). Cl. Gk. also knows the meaning of imposter,
since spellbinders could make false claims for their powers, and RSV prefers this
translation in 2 Tim. 3:13 in the light of the closing words of the verse.
(e) The word python is connected with the Delphic oracle, Delphi being the place
where Apollo slew the mighty serpent Python that guarded the oracle (Strabo, 9, 3,
12). Later on python came to designate a spirit of divination and also a ventriloquist
who was thought to have such a spirit inside his or her belly. In Acts 16:16 a girl at
558
MAGIC
Philippi had a Python spirit (pneuma pythdna), the two words being in apposition.
She probably had second sight fostered by a possessing spirit. Such second sight
was characteristic of the priestesses of the Delphic oracle. The spirit in the girl
was forced to admit the truth of the gospel, just as other spirits confessed Jesus
Christ during his earthly ministry (e.g. Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34; Matt. 8:29), but
neither Jesus nor Paul accepted testimony from this source, and they cast out the
spirits. (On the term python see further Arndt, 736; F. F. Bruce, op. cit., 315; E.
Haenchen, op. cit., 495; W. Foerster, python, TDNT VI 917-20.)
(f) baskainéd is possibly related to Eng. fascinate via the Latin (cf. fascino,
bewitch, charm). The meaning is to cast a spell by what is called the evil eye. Paul
uses the word of the deceived Galatians in Gal. 3:1 (“Who has bewitched you. . .?’’).
The effect of the spell, if the evil eye is detected at the time, could be averted by
spitting, and some hold that this was in Paul’s mind in his use of ekpty6é in Gal.
4:14 (lit., spit out; RSV “‘despise’’).
3. The heresy in Col. 2. Whatever heresy Paul has in mind in this chapter, much
of what he says is applicable to practitioners of the occult. Paul’s theme is the abso-
lute supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. If the Christian is linked to him, he shares
in his supremacy over the spirit world, good and bad, and, to say the least, he is
foolish to think he can gain more power through intermediate spirit beings. Thus
vv. 8 and 20 speak of the Christian’s deliverance from the elemental spirits of the
universe, according to the probable translation of ta stoicheia tou kosmou. In v. 15
there is the conquest of principalities and powers (cf. Eph. 6:12) and in v. 18 the
worship (service) of angels, and also induced visions. Finally the strange vs. 21-23
could describe the rigorous ritual of the magician to produce and safeguard his
contacts with the spirits (cf. self-abasement, v. 18).
4. Mediumship and spiritualism. Mediumship is of a different order from mani-
pulative magic and sorcery, but, inasmuch as it is an attempt to communicate with
the departed, there is no relaxation in the NT of the OT ban (e.g. Lev. 19:31;
Deut. 18:10, 11; 1 Chr. 10:13, 14; Isa. 8:19, 20). The argument is not simply from
silence but from significant silence. Thus, when Paul speaks of the departed, he
assures the Christians that they will meet their loved ones again, inasmuch as they
are both “in Christ’. He does not suggest that Christian mediums can put the
bereaved in touch with those who have passed on, and thus give assurance that they
have not perished (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:17—-19), whereas many spiritualists
assert that NT — prophets were mediums.
The NT shows that God may allow a departed spirit to return for purposes of his
own. — Moses and — Elijah returned on the Mount of Transfiguration to reassert
the testimony of the law and the prophets to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross
(Matt. 17:3; Mk. 9:4; Lk. 9:30 f.). There are two other references to spirits or
ghosts. When Jesus walked on the water, the disciples thought they were seeing a
phantasma (Matt. 14:26; Mk. 6:49). The word is a general one to describe an
apparition. The more important reference is Lk. 24:37—41, where Jesus appeared to
his disciples after his — resurrection. Some thought he was a pneuma, a — spirit or
ghost. Jesus did not deny the existence of ghosts, but showed that his resurrection
body was of a different order altogether from a spirit form. This is further testimony
to the difference between his resurrection and his spiritual survival.
J. Stafford Wright
559
MAGIC
5. In Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, SBT Second Series 28, 1974,
J. M. Hull provides a survey of magical ideas and practices in the Hellenistic world.
He then examines the question whether Jesus had anything in common with this
background in the light of traditions in the early centuries that Jesus was a magician
(cf. the third-century gnostic Pistis Sophia ch. 102, §§ 255, 258; ch. 130, §§ 332-35;
Acts of Pilate 2:1; Clementine Recognitions 1, 42; Act.Thom. 20; Act. Paul 15;
Pseudo-Clementines, Homily 7, 9; Origen, Contra Celsum 1, 38 and 60; Tertullian,
On Idolatry 9; the Koran 5, 113). The author sees some affinities between Mk.’s
presentation of Jesus’ healing work and the magical beliefs of the surrounding
world. This was a decisive factor in the way Jesus appears in Mk. as a liberator from
the powers of evil. Similarly in Lk. and Acts the greater power of Christ is stressed.
Matthew, on the other hand, sought to avoid giving the impression of any connec-
tion between Jesus and magic. However, Hull does not think that Jesus thought of
himself as a magician. A difficulty attending the thesis that Mk. and other NT
writers thought of Jesus as a “‘Master-Magician”’ is the presumption that the >
miracles of Jesus were works of magic. The evidence for magical practices in the
gospels is slim. Jesus used saliva in healing the deaf-mute in Mk. 7:32 ff. and the
blind man in Mk. 8:23. The word ephphatha which represents ’etpattah or the con-
tracted ’eppattah is not a meaningless word like abracadabra, and Mk. himself
provides a translation which is contrary to magical practice. It is derived from the
vb. p*tah and means “‘be opened” or “‘be released”’ (cf. SB II 17 f. for its use in
connection with blindness). The idea is that of the whole person being opened.
V. Taylor compares it to “verbal encouragement” as in modern psychotherapy
(The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1952, 354; cf. E. R. Micklem, Miracles and the
New Psychology, 1922, 119). But C. E. B. Cranfield prefers to see it as “the command
that shatters the fetters by which Satan has held his victim bound” (The Gospel
according to Saint Mark, 1959, 252). The accounts of the healing of the woman with
the issue of blood (Matt. 9:20 ff.; Mk. 5:25-34; Lk. 9:34-8) do not significantly
differ in any way which démonstrates that any one of the evangelists is more inter-
ested in magic than the others. The woman herself has a faith which might seem
to border upon superstition, in that she believed that she would be healed if only
she could touch the clothes of Jesus. But this must be seen against the background
that her unclean condition prevented her from coming openly to him. All three
evangelists avoid any support for connecting the healing with magic in giving Jesus’
reply, ““Your faith has saved you [hé pistis sou sesoken se].’’ Whereas magicians
used names in connection with spells, the way that the — name of Jesus is used in
healing and casting out evil spirits stands out in marked contrast. Neither Jesus
nor the apostles used secret rituals or esoteric signs to gain control over super-
natural powers. Still less is there any trace of trying to coerce a reluctant God to
further one’s own ends. Although the imputation was made that Jesus cast out
demons in the name of Beelzebul, the self-contradictory nature of the charge is
at once evident in the light of the exorcisms that Jesus performed (Matt. 12: 25-37;
Mk. 3:23-30; Lk. 11:17-23; > Satan). For Jesus the control over evil spirits
was not an end in itself. He told his followers: ““Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this,
that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven’”’
(Lk. 10:20). (The unauthentic longer ending of Mk. gives rather greater promin-
ence to such powers than the authentic gospel texts, cf. Mk. 16:17 f. Even so, the
560
MAGIC
emphasis is one of implied contrast between the power of Jesus and other powers.)
Finally, the Lord’s Prayer and other prayers of Jesus have a completely different
orientation from magic. The latter is concerned with the control of the super-
natural by techniques to further one’s own ends. Jesus’ concern was to do the will
of the Father and to teach men to submit their whole lives to that will (Matt. 6:9-
15 par. Lk. 11:2-4; cf. Matt. 26:36-46 par. Mk. 14:32-42, Lk. 22:40-46; Jn.
4:34; 5:30). C. Brown
—> Angel, —> Bless, — Curse, -> Demon, —> Dream, —> Heal, — Miracle, — Satan,
—> Spirit |
The following bibliography contains references to a number of works dealing with magic outside
the Bible and the ancient world. This is for the purpose of comparing magical practices.
(a). C. Bailey, Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome, 1932; J. Beattie and J. Middleton, eds.,
Spirit Mediumship and Society in Africa, 1969; H. Birkeland, The Evildoers in the Book of Psalms,
Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo 2, 1955; E. A. W. Budge, Egyptian
Magic, 1899; R. Bultmann and D. Liihrmann, phantasma, TDNT IX 6; E. D. van Buren, ‘“‘Amulets
in Ancient Babylonia’’, Orientalia 14, 1945, 21 ff.; R. P. Casey, ‘“Simon Magus’’, in F. J. Foakes
Jackson and K. Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 1933, 151-63; T. W. Davies, Magic,
Divination, and Demonology Among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours, 1898; G. Delling, baskaino,
TDNT I 594 f.; goés, TDNT I 737 f.; and magos etc., TDNT IV 356-9; E. R. Dodds, The Greeks
and the Irrational, 1951; E. Ehnmark, “Religion and Magic: Frazer, Soderblom and Hagerstrém’’,
Ethnos 21, 1956, 1-10; S. Eitrem, The Greek Magical Papyri in the British Museum, 1923; Some
Notes on the Demonology of the New Testament, Symbolae Osloenses Supplement 19667; S. Eitrem,
ed., Papyri Osloenses, I, Magical Papyri, 1925; S. E. Eitrem and J. H. Croon, “Magic”, OCD
637 f.; E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, 1937; W. Foerster,
python, TDNT VI 917-20; J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, I-XII,
1911-27°; abridged edition I-III, 1957; and The Magic Art, I-II, 1936?; A. H. Gardiner, ‘‘Magic
(Egyptian), ERE VIII 262-9; M. Gaster, ‘“‘Magic (Jewish), ERE VIII 300-5; W. Goode, “‘Magic
and Religion, A Continuum”, Ethnos 14, 1949, 172-82; A. Guillaume, Prophecy and Divination,
1938; J. M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, SBT Second Series 28, 1974; L.
W. King, ‘‘Magic (Babylon), ERE VIII 253 ff.; and Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, 1896; C.
Kluckhorn, Navaho Witchcraft, Peabody Museum Papers, 22, 1944; H. van der Leeuw, Religion
in its Essence and Manifestation, 1964*; J. E. Lowe, Magic in Greek and Latin Literature, 1929; D.
S. Margoliouth, ‘‘Magic (Arabian and Muslim)’, ERE VIII 252 f.; L. Mair, Witchcraft, 1969; B.
Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays, (1948) 1974; M. Mauss, A General
Theory of Magic, 1972; I. Mendelsohn, “‘Magic’’, /DB III 223 ff.; R. R. Marett, ““Magic (Intro-
ductory)”, ERE VIII 245-52; A. D. Nock, ““Greek Magical Papyri’, Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 15, 1929, 219-35; and ‘‘Paul and the Magus’’, in F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake,
eds., The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 1933, 164-88; W. M. F. Petrie, Amulets, 1914; J. B.
Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 19552; E. Reiner, Surpu, A Collection of Sumerian
and Akkadian Incantations, 1958; H. Ringgren, Religions of the Near East, 1973; E. Rohde,
Psyche, 1925; K. F. Smith, ‘“‘“Magic (Greek and Roman)’, ERE I 269-89; R. C. Thompson,
The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh in the British Museum, I-II, 1900; The
Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, I-II, 1903-4; Semitic Magic, its Origins and Development,
1908; L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science during the first Thirteen
Centuries of our Era, 1923; J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk
Religion, 1939; V. W. Turner, Ndembu Divination: Its Symbolism and Techniques, 1961; M. Unger,
Biblical Demonology, 1952; D. P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella,
1958; H. Webster, Magic: A Sociological Study, 1948; G. B. Wetter, Magic and Religion, 1958;
R. C. Zaehner, The Teachings of the Magi: A Compendium of Zoroastrian Beliefs, 1956.
(b). E. Benveniste, Les Mages dans l’ancien Iran, 1938; A. Bertholet, Das Dynamistische im Alten
Testament, 1926; A. Bertholet, C.-M. Edsman, K. Galling and W. Eilers, “‘Magie’’, RGG* IV
595-602; K. Beth, Religion und Magie bei den Naturvolkern, 19287; J. Bidez and F. Cumont,
Les Mages Hellénisés, III, 1938; L. Bieler, Theios anér. Das Bild des ‘“‘géttlichen Menschen’ in
Spatantike und Friihchristentum, I-II, 1935-36; and “‘dynamis und exousia’, Wiener Studien 55,
182-90; H. Birkeland, Die Feinde des Individuums in der israelitischen Psalmenliteratur, 1933; L.
561
MAGIc/MAN
Blau, Das altjtidische Zauberwesen, 1898; A. Carnoy, ‘“‘Le nom des Mages’’, Muséon New Series 9,
1908; 121-58; G. Conteneau, La Magie chez les Assyriens et les Babyloniens, 1947; S. Eitrem,
‘““Magische Papyri”, Miinchener Beitrdge zur Papyrusforschung 19, 1933, 243 ff.; and ‘‘Kronos in
der Magie’’, Annuaire de I’ Institut de Philologie et d’ Histoire Orientales (Mélanges Bidez) 2, 1934,
351-60; G. Fohrer, ‘‘Prophetie und Magie’’, ZAW 78, 1966, 25-47; A. E. Jensen, Mythos und
Kult bei Naturvélkern, 19592; F. Lexa, La Magie dans l’Egypte antique, \-III, 1925; H. Kaupel,
Die Damonen im Alten Testament, 1930; G. Messina, Der Ursprung der Magie und der
zarathustraischen Religion, 1930; and I magi a Betlemme e una predizione di Zoroastro, 1933; K.
Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, I-III, 1928-42; Papyrus-
funde und Papyrusforschung, 1933; ‘‘Die griechischen und lateinischen Zaubertafeln’’, Archiv fiir
Papyrusforschung 11, 1935, 153-64; ‘“‘Zur Uberlieferung der spatantiken Magie”, Zentralblatt fiir
Bibliothekswesen Behiheft 75, Georg Leyh Festgabe, 1950, 223-40; ‘‘Neue griechische Zauber-
papyri’’, Chronique d’Egypte 26, 1951, 405-9; C. H. Ratschow, Magie und Religion, 1955; L.
Rohrich, “‘Zauberbiicher” and ‘‘Zaubersprtiche’’, RGG*® VI 1869 ff., 1873 ff.; E. Spranger, Die
Masgie der Seele, 1947; E. Stiglmayr, ‘‘Zauberer’’, RGG? VI 1971 ff.
Man
The basic concept behind the Gk. word anthropos is that of generic man (as opposed
to gods or animals), the human race, mankind (cf. the derived word, anthropology,
the theory or science of man). In this general sense men and women, old men and
children can all be subsumed under the one overall heading (cf. Ger. man, Eng.
“one’’). anthropos, within the genus man, also refers some specifically to men,
occasionally also to attendants or — slaves, as distinct from their — Lord (Kyrios).
When anthropos refers to a particular man, its meaning impinges on that of the
word anér, denoting a man as opposed to a> woman, whether he be husband,
bridegroom, warrior, hero (similarly arsén, male). The fact that anér can take on
the more general meaning of mankind, whereas no such similar usage is attested
for woman (gyné) is linked up with the ancient identification of man and
mankind.
api ; avy p (anér), a man; avd piCopai (andrizomai), behave in a
[ap manly way.
CL anér, attested from Mycenaean Gk. onwards, is found in secular Gk. from
Homer in all the meanings which are also known in the LXX and the NT: (a)
a man, as contrasted with — woman (Plato, Gorgias 514e; (b) husband (Homer,
Od. 6, 182 ff.); also bridegroom (cf. SB II 393 ff.); (c) adult (Xen., Cyr. 8, 7, 6) and
warrior; (d) manliness (Aristoph., Achilles 77 ff.); also gentleman, hero; (e) man,
as genus (Homer, //. 1, 544; — anthrdpos).
OT There are several Heb. words used in the OT which approximate to these various
meanings which the LXX often simply translates by anér. The main ones are
is, man; **nds, men, people; ba‘al, lord, husband, head of a household; gibbdr,
hero, warrior; zdqgén, elder; nasi’, prince; ’ad6n, lord. The man is lord of the wife
(Gen. 3:16; 18:12). He alone is competent in legal and cultic proceedings (Exod.
23:17; 34:23; 1 Sam. 1:3 f.). But alongside this typically oriental and patriarchal
way of life, one can find allusions to men’s responsibilities to women, above all in
writings such as Deut. 20:7; 21:14; 22:13 ff.; 24:5, and occasionally also in later
Judaism (cf. e.g., B. Yeb. 62b; cf. SB III 610a; — Woman, art. gyné oT).
562
MAN
NT 1. anér occurs in the NT, with meanings mentioned as under CL, as follows:
(a) Matt. 14:21; 1 Cor. 11:13 ff. (= arsén is sometimes used instead of anér,
linking up with the OT; cf. Matt. 19:4 par. Mk. 10:6 and Rom. 1:26 ff. with Gen.
1:27). anér is used without emphasis in Acts 3:14; 10:28, and as a typical form of
address in Acts 15:7, 13 and passim; (b) Mk. 10:2, 12; cf. Matt. 19:3, 9; Rom.
7:2 f.; Eph. 5:22 ff.; Tit. 1:6; of a betrothed person (cf. Matt. 1:19; 2 Cor. 11:2;
Rev. 21:2 with Deut. 22:23); (c) 1 Cor. 13:11; cf. Jas. 3:2; (d) including maturity
and dignity (Lk. 23:59; Acts 6:3, 5); (e) Lk. 5:8; Jas. 1:20 (modelled on Gk. and
also OT usage).
anér occurs most frequently in Lk. and Paul. Paul often uses anér to distinguish
man from gyné (e.g. in | Cor. 7:1-16). Lk. uses anér usually in the more general
meaning of — anthropos (as in Lk. 11:31; 19:7; Acts 2:5 and passim).
2. The organization and leadership of the Christian community in the NT (—
Church) was largely male-orientated, just as Jesus’ circle of the Twelve comprised
only men (but cf. — Woman, art. gyné NT). But the man did not receive his special
position because of his natural fitness for the cult. This much came rather from
Christ, by whom he was honoured and whom he was called upon to reflect (1 Cor.
11:7). In the sequence God—Christ-man—woman (1 Cor. 11:3 ff.), each one is the
—> “head” of the following, and, conversely, each member is the reflected splendour
(doxa — glory) of the preceding one. This qualification of the man, however, no
longer indicates preferential status but man’s special task and responsibility, just
as the woman has hers. For before God, according to Gal. 3:28 (cf. | Pet. 4:7),
man and woman are, in the last analysis, on the same level. This establishment of
the equality of the sexes before God which does not imply any levelling-out of their
human differences — is something new and worthy of note in Christianity. It throws
into sharp relief the distinction between the Christian view and the otherwise wide-
spread contempt for women in the ancient world.
When Christ and man are put in parallel in Eph. 5:25 and 28 (cf. also Col. 3:19;
1 Pet. 3:7), the point of comparison is the responsibility of the man to love his wife
in the same way as Christ loves his church, i.e. with a life of total, selfless, self-
sacrificial devotion, comparable with that of Christ for the church. The exhortation
andrizesthe, lit. “be men’’ (RSV “‘be courageous’’) is a summons like that to “‘be
alert [grégoreite]’ and to “‘stand firm in faith [stékete en té pistei|’” (1 Cor. 16:13;
cf. 2 Sam. 10:12 LXX; Pss. 26[27]:14; 30:25 [31:24]; Josephus, War 6, 50). It is
a powerful form of demand aimed at the whole community: their ultimate goal
should be to become “‘a perfect man [andra teleion]”’ (Eph. 4:13 AV).
H. Vorlander
3. anér is used in the sense of husband in the phrase ‘“‘husband of one wife
[mias gynaikos anér]’’ which occurs in the Pastoral Epistles as one of the qualifica-
tions stipulated for bishops (1 Tim. 3:2), deacons (1 Tim. 3:12) and elders (Tit.
1:6). The latter were evidently the same as bishops (— Bishop, Presbyter, Elder).
Roman Catholic exegesis tends to take the phrase to mean that the office holder
may be married, but anyone who has remarried after the death of his first wife or
who has remarried after divorce (in the case of a pagan convert) is automatically
excluded (cf. C. Spicq, Les Epitres Pastorales, 1947, 78f. who quotes extensively
from patristic sources). A similar view is evidently adopted by the RSV which
563
MAN
translates the phrase “‘married only once.”’ Whilst such an interpretation may be
consonant with later developments in the church, the literal interpretation of the
text, 1.e. that the man should not have more than one wife who is alive, seems to fit
the first-century situation better. On the one hand, it would exclude polygamy
which did occur in the first century (— Marriage, art. gamed OT 7) and in this
respect would meet the OT norms for marriage. On the other hand, it would also
exclude divorcees who had remarried, since the first wife is still regarded as the
wife despite the divorce (cf. Mk. 10:11; Lk. 16:18b; — Divorce). The converse of
this phrase occurs in | Tim. 5:9 in the case of the enrolment of widows who must
be “‘the wife of one man [henos andros gyné].”’ To exclude widows who had been
“married more than once”’ (RSV) would seem unjust, especially in cases of levirate
marriage (— Marriage, art. gamed oT 4, 7). But the ruling is understandable, if the
woman has not been involved in divorce or a polygamous marriage. It should be
remembered that the passage is not concerned about welfare in general and the
Christian’s attitude to anyone in need, but with those within the church who have
a claim on church resources. Elsewhere Paul advised remarriage in case of need
(1 Cor. 7:8 f., 39 f.). C. Brown
dv0 panos (anthropos), man; dvOparnivoc (anthropinos),
dvd ponos human.
CL anthrdpos, attested from Mycenaean times, means a human being, and also a
a man. The fem. equivalent is ~ woman, often in a contemptuous sense. The
etymology is disputed, though it may be a compound of anér and Ops, 1.e. man’s
face. The adj. anthrépinos is a derivative word meaning human, belonging to
humanity. It is used from pre-Socratic writers and Hdt. onwards.
In secular Gk. anthropos means man, as opposed to beasts, or also to gods (in
Homer). In a contemptuous sense, it means a slave (used also as fem. by Hdt. and
others). There is also a voc. usage, originally employed for slaves (Hdt.), with
undertones of reproachfulness: “‘Man!” (Plato). anthropos, as a general designation,
is often rendered by “‘one’’. |
oT 1. The Heb. words corresponding to anthropos are ’adam, ’i§ or ’°nés. ’>adam
is used to designate his nature, as contrasted with God in | Sam. 15:29, and
with animals in Gen. 1:26. In its generic use it includes both man and woman (cf.
Gen. 2:7 ff., 18 ff.; — anér; — Woman, art. gyné). It is also the word for — Adam.
"i§ occurs, e.g., in Gen. 2:24. ’*nds§ often signifies the aspect of weakness, mortality
(cf. Ps. 8:5).
In both accounts of creation (Gen. 1:1 ff.; 2:4b ff.) the creation of man is the
high-point. In Gen. | he is the crowning culmination; in Gen. 2 he is the mid-point
of the creation. His humanity resides in the life he has been given (2:7b) in his
correspondence to God (1:27a). He is deemed worthy to be spoken to by God and
to be given a task (2:16 f.; 1:28). Through disobedience he falls victim to death.
"adam, a word connected with ’*damdh, earth, now no longer simply alludes to his
creatureliness (2:7) but also to his transitoriness (3:19).
2. The OT is not acquainted with anything corresponding to the Gk. division
of man into two or three parts, consisting of nous, psyché, and soma (mind, soul,
564
MAN
and body). The following concepts indicate, in rough outline comparison, different
aspects of man, always seen as a whole. They do not represent different parts.
(a) > Flesh (Heb. basar) often indicating man’s transitoriness (Ps. 78:39).
(b) — Spirit (Heb. riiah) man as a living being (Ps. 146:4), as a person (Ezek. 11:19;
spirit and heart are mentioned in reference to man in relation to God). (c) — Soul
(Heb. nepes) man as life bound up with his body (1 Sam. 19:11b), as an individual
(Deut. 24:7a; Ezek. 13:18 f.). The soul is neither pre-existent nor immortal, for it
is the whole man (Gen. 2:7). (d) > Heart (Heb. /éb, /@bab) the essential, inner man,
as opposed to his outward appearance (Job 12:3; 1 Sam. 16:7b). Due to the trans-
lation of the LXX, Gk. currents of thought became bound up with these concepts,
and gained ground in Judaism, as the NT picture shows.
3. A pessimistic conception of man is found in a section of the wisdom literature
(e.g. Eccl. and Job 14) which is radicalized in the Qumran texts. The utter vanity,
transitoriness and sinfulness of man is presented in a wide variety of formulations.
According to the Catechism of the Community Rule (IQS 3:13-4:26), men fall into
two groups: the ‘Sons of Light’? who are ruled by the spirit of truth (— Light)
and the ‘“‘Sons of Darkness”’, who are both fighting simultaneously for the domina-
tion of man’s heart. This accounts for the sins even of the pious.
Another branch of Judaism reveals the development to a body-soul dualism
(4 Macc. 2:21 f.), which in Hellenistic Judaism led to an attitude of loathing for
the body (2 Esd. 7:88, 100). According to Josephus, there was widespread belief
that — redemption is the liberation of the — soul from the — body (War 2, 8; 7, 8;
Ant. 18, 1; ~ Soul, art. psyché oT 2). The — image of God in man is restricted to
the nous, his — mind and — reason.
4. This dualistic view of man in the Hellenistic world is found above all in
gnosticism (cf. Corp.Herm. 1, 15, 18, 21), which certain sections of the NT en-
deavour to combat (e.g. John). The thought of man’s being related to God derives
from the Stoics, and this is taken up in Acts 17:28 f. (~ God, art. theos NT 4 (b)).
NT In the NT, as in the OT, the question about man is essentially that concerning
his — sin and — redemption. Abstract definitions find no place here. Man
differs from — animals and plants (Matt. 4:19; 12:12; 1 Cor. 15:39; Rev. 9:4),
from — angels (1 Cor. 4:9; 13:1), from Christ (Gal. 1:12; Eph. 6:7), and from
God (Matt. 7:11; 10:32 f.; Mk. 10:9; Jn. 10:33; Acts 5:29; Phil. 2:7). anthropos
is used in order to belittle in Jas. 1:7; with reference to Jesus in Matt. 26:74 par.
Mk. 14:71 and Jn. 19:5. Jesus is called anthrépos in respect of his true humanity in
Phil. 2:7 and 1 Tim. 2:5. Jesus’ own self-designation was ho hyios tou anthropou,
(— Son of God; > Child). kata anthropous and kata anthrdépon, lit. according to
men, in a human fashion, are used as common synonymous phrases for anthropinos,
human (cf. Rom. 3:5; 1 Cor. 3:3; 15:32; 1 Pet. 4:6; and Rom. 6:19; 1 Cor. 10:13).
If anthropos is defined as to sex, it can be used, as in secular Gk., synonymously
with —> anér, a man (see Matt. 11:8; 19:5; 1 Cor. 7:1).
The NT is not interested in an isolated self-contained anthropology any more
than the OT. Statements about man are always partly theological pronouncements.
He always appears as man vis-a-vis God: in his creatureliness (as distinct from
other creatures and from God), in being addressed and chosen by God, in his
transitoriness and disobedience, and as subject to the wrath and grace of God.
565
MAN
The unity and equality of mankind are not postulates of abstract ideas: they are
realized in the Christian community (Gal. 3:28; Rom. 10:12; cf. 3:22, 29; Jas.
2:1 ff.). Through Christ the “tone new man [hena kainon anthropon]” (Eph. 2:15
AV) comes into being. At the same time new differentiations come to light through
God’s electing activity in Christ (Matt. 20:16) and through the variety of the — gifts
of the Spirit in the church (1 Cor. 12).
1. The Synoptics. Man as a creature owes God obedience and service without
any prior claim to reward (Lk. 17:17 ff.). Jesus’ universal call to repentance assumes
that all are sinners (Mk. 1:15; Matt. 6:12; cf. 5:45; 9:13; Lk. 15:7; — Sin, art.
hamartia). At the same time, there are the statements concerning the great value
God puts on a man (Matt. 6:26b; 10:29 f.), even as a sinner (Lk. 15). His vocation
is to be a son of the — Father and to be perfect like him (Matt. 5:45, 48). Lk. 2:14
speaks in Semitic fashion of anthropoi eudokias. This does not mean, as the Vulg.
translates, men of good will (Lat. hominibus bonae voluntatis). Rather, the gen.
expresses a possessional relationship: men as the possession of the divine favour
(cf. Lk. 3:22; IQH 4:32 f.; 11:9). What is thus meant is “the elect Messianic
community of salvation” (Jeremias, TDNT 1 365; cf. J. Jeremias, ‘“‘Anthropoi
eudokias”’, ZNW 28, 1929, 13-20; E. Vogt, ‘“‘ ‘Peace Among Men of God’s Good
Pleasure’ Lk. 2:14’, in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament, 1958,
114-17).
2. Paul. The old man without Christ (palaios anthropos), the unconverted man, is
either devoted to the law (Rom. 2:17 ff.) or in rebellion against it (Rom. 1:18 ff.);
he perverts his knowledge of God, and in so doing becomes himself perverted
(Rom. 1:21 ff.). In either case he is unfree and culpable. Alongside statements
about man’s responsibility stand those about his incapability (cf. his inexcusability
in Rom. 2:1 with his inability to do good in 7:18 f.). This is a tension which Paul
sees removed only in God and overcome in Christ (Phil. 2:12b, 13). Through
Christ, the new man (kainos anthropos) and the last — Adam (Rom. 5:9 ff.; 1 Cor.
15:21 f., 45 ff.), man becomes free. He himself becomes a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17;
cf. Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:1-4:6). Baptism signifies the death of the old man with
Christ (Rom. 6:6). Through incorporation into the — body of Christ man is born
aS a new man (— Birth, art. palingenesia). To the new man is directed the impera-
tive to be what Christ has made him (Eph. 4:22 ff.; Rom. 6:6 ff.; Col. 3:9 ff.). It is
not in man’s natural capacities to become this; it comes about through being re-
newed in Christ and in living out this new life. Rom. 8:1—17 depicts this in terms of
being led by the Spirit. Rom. 7:14 ff. sees man as what the Reformers called simul
iustus et peccator (at once just and a sinner). Paul distinguishes further between the
inner and outer man, esd kai ex6d anthropos (2 Cor. 4:16), that is, between his
essential being, often expressed in terms of the kardia (— heart), and his outward
appearance.
In addition, these are the most important anthropological concepts found in
Paul (cf. with this oT 2). (a) séma, — body, not only the physical body but the
whole person, the self, “‘I’’ (see Phil. 1:20; and, for the double significance, cf. 1
Cor. 15:44 with Phil. 3:21). The body is not despised (1 Cor. 15:35 ff.; 6:19). (b)
sarx, — flesh occasionally synonymous with soma, speaks of the transience of
man (2 Cor. 4:10 f.). It furthermore signifies his sinfulness (Rom. 8:1 ff.; 1 Cor.
15:50), but in the realm, not so much of nature as of history (— Adam) and —
566
MAN
guilt. (c) psyché, — soul, man as a living being, a person (2 Cor. 12:15). | Cor.
15:44 relates its existence to this life as contrasted with the next: “It is sown a
physical body [séma psychikon], it is raised a spiritual body [sOma pneumatikon]’
(RSV). (d) pneuma, — spirit. In certain passages its meaning overlaps with that of
soma and psyché and refers to the inner self. It bears a certain resemblance to the
modern concept of self-consciousness (cf. Rom. 8:16 where the Spirit is said to
bear witness with our spirit that we are children of God, in that we cry to him as
Father). (e) From Gk. thought, and found primarily in Paul, are: nous, > mind
(— Reason) which focusses attention on man as a conscious, rational being; and
syneidésis, — conscience. Rom. 2:15 refers to the conscience of the Gentiles and
its r6le in their knowledge of God.
3. John. Johannine statements view man as prey to the kosmos, the world in
opposition to God, and therefore missing his real self (— Lie, art. pseudomai on
Jn. 8:41-7; 1 Jn. 1:10; 2:22; 5:10; Rev. 2:2). The coming of Jesus confronts man
with a decision. In contrast with gnostic dualism Jn. presents a dualism of decision
which in Jn. 3:3 ff. is linked with being born again (— Birth). This decision demon-
strates ““‘whence’’ the man comes — whether he is “‘of the world” or ‘“‘from God”
(cf. Jn. 8:47 and 1 Jn. 4:5 with e.g. Jn. 5:24 alongside the call to decision of Jn.
6:44, 65, 12:32). But, equally, there is no depreciation of matter here (Jn. 1:14). On
the contrary, the whole man is made free through Jesus (Jn. 8:31 ff.), and thus gains
life (5:24; 11:25 f.). H. Vorldnder
4. The NT and Modern Psychology. Biblical psychology is practical rather than
scientific, but is understandable in its context. Thus, since strong emotion fre-
quently affects the lower parts of the body from the solar plexus downwards, the
bowels (—> Mercy, art. splanchna) is the term used where we today, in equally
popular terms, would speak of the heart (e.g. 2 Cor. 6:12; 7:15; Phil. 1:8; Phlm.
7, 12). At the opposite extreme nous is the mind, intellect, or understanding (e.g.
Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 14:19; — Reason, art. nous). kardia (heart) stands somewhere
between the two, being sometimes emotional, though less warm than splanchna
(e.g. Rom. 1:24; Jas. 3:14), and sometimes representing the inner set of the life-
pattern, including volition (e.g. 2 Cor. 4:6; 9:7; Eph. 4:18).
Thus the NT seizes on commonsense descriptive terms to describe centres of
emotion, feeling, volition, life-pattern, and comprehension. One may class these
aspects of the personal psyché (variously — soul, animal life, person), but the
Bible is concerned, not with theory, but with bringing every single part of the
person into an effective whole through the Holy Spirit giving continuous life to the
human pneuma, — spirit. (e.g. Jn. 3:6; 1 Cor. 2:10-16). The usage of all these
words is discussed in detail under separate entries.
Man is seen as a whole being, and whatever touches one part affects the whole.
The NT would agree with the modern term psychosomatic, but would want to turn
the word into pneumatopsychosomatic.
To write in detail about modern schools of psychology lies outside the scope of
this lexicon, but one can distinguish certain general aspects of psychological
thinking that are likely to continue in one form or another, regardless of the pre-
vailing fashions in psychology. The NT would have no quarrel with the investiga-
tions of academic and laboratory psychology, which explore the functions of the
567
MAN
brain, nervous system, glands, and the animal responses of the human body. It is
worth noting that the function of the brain as the organ of thought was an occa-
sional hypothesis and not an accepted fact in the ancient world. Thus, while Plato
in the Timaeus 69-72 made it the centre of the rational soul, Aristotle treated it as a
cooler of the blood (Part.An. 2, 7). It is interesting that Ephesians makes Christ the
head and ruler of the body (4:15, 16).
The Bible would, however, cross swords with some modern conclusions that the
bodily responses that psychology can investigate are a total explanation of man, i.e.
that man is wholly body, and consequently cannot survive death. One need not
postulate what has been called “‘the ghost in the machine”’ (cf. G. Ryle, The Concept
of Mind, 1949) if one sees man as a personality who responds to the world of time
and sense through the body and brain, and at the same time responds to mental,
aesthetic, and spiritual concepts, which are real, even though they are beyond the
reach of the physical sciences. The death of the body temporarily shuts off one
dimension until the resurrection, but does not destroy the whole person (cf. 1
Thess. 5:23).
Psychologists of the behaviourist schools interpret man as no more than a
complicated build-up of conditioned reflexes. As has often been pointed out, if this
theory is true, it cannot be true, since truth would have no meaning. One psychol-
ogist would be conditioned to certain conclusions, another to other conclusions.
Obviously the NT does not deny the build-up of patterns of life through condition-
ing. Conditioning may produce hardness of heart (e.g. Mk. 3:5; Heb. 3:13) or
reactions of self-interest (e.g. Acts 19:25-27). The renewal of the personal res-
ponses through the Holy Spirit is a form of conditioning, so that one intelligently
and gladly reacts to the will of God (e.g. Rom. 12:1, 2). In other words, God has
made man capable of building up a pattern of life which becomes, as we say, second
nature to him.
Where the NT differs from behaviourist psychology is over the actual reality of
the work of the Spirit, and the God-given ability of man to respond deliberately to
the call of Jesus Christ. A psychologist takes a Christian conversion, and accounts
for it after it has happened in terms of natural responses arising from such states as
fear and inner stress. The NT would not deny such stresses, including guilt, but
gives primacy to the Holy Spirit breaking in and supplying the dynamics of new
life. The ensuing knowledge of God in and through Jesus Christ is objectively real.
Certainly conditioning techniques, as at a highly emotional meeting, may produce a
temporary conversion or an outburst of strange manifestations, but a truly Chris-
tian experience leads the person on afterwards in a proper walk with Christ after
the NT pattern.
Other forms of psychology pay more regard to an inner world of man, postulat-
ing a realm of the unconscious, which stores up early memories and experiences,
and often real or imagined occasions of guilt. These under repression may break
out in disguise, and produce abnormal feelings, attitudes, and reactions.
Jungian psychologists see the unconscious also as the sphere of positive dynamic
drives.
This reminds us of the NT teaching of the fallenness of man, with the heart as the
storage place of the host of evils that emerge in the life (e.g. Matt. 15:18, 19). A
non-Christian psychologist may uncover the originating cause of some trouble,
568
MAN
such as rivalry with one’s father in infancy, and thus bring the patient to terms with
himself and society. But full adjustment, as the NT sees it, involves cleansing from
all sin, known and unknown, and a new relationship to God in and through Jesus
Christ, and this is not given by a psychologist as psychologist.
One further school emphasizes the need for life to make sense, with purposeless-
ness as a cause of breakdown. The NT entirely agrees, as witness Paul’s words
about the goal of his life in Phil. 3:12-16, and the wisdom of the gospel in 1 Cor.
2:6-13.
There is nothing in NT teaching which runs counter to sound psychological
practice, but the NT has the necessary overplus of God-relationship as needed for
full maturity of man in himself and in relation to his fellows in the church and in
society. J. Stafford Wright
aaa dpony (arsén), male ; Off/Auc (thélys), female; dpaevoKoityc
| pon (arsenokoités), male homosexual, pederast, sodomite.
CL arsén occurs in cl. Gk. from Homer onwards, sometimes in the Attic form
arrén (often in papyri, and also Philo, Josephus and Rom. 1:27 y./.). (On the
form see Funk § 34 (2); Moulton, Grammar, I, 103.) It means male as opposed to
female, thélys (cf. Plato, Leg. 2,9 p. 665c; K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae,
I, 1928, 15, 18). thélys is also found from Homer onwards as an adj. meaning female,
but also with the art. meaning woman (e.g. Hdt. 3, 109; Xen., Mem. 2, 14). On the
phrase arsén kai thélys, male and female, cf. Plato, Rep. 454d; Aristot., Met. 988a
Di
OT arsén occurs some 54 times in the LXX canonical and uncanonical writings,
chiefly for the Heb. zakar. It appears in the phrase arsen kai thély, male and
female, in Gen. 1:27 (Heb. zakar tin’gébah) of the creation of male and female
in the > image of God (cf. also Gen. 5:2; 6:19 f.; 7:2f., 9, 15 f.; Lev. 3:1, 6;
12:7, referring not only to man and woman but to the male and female of animal
species in the flood story and in sacrifice). The male is referred to on his own in
Gen. 17:14, 23 (the institution of male — circumcision as the — covenant sign);
Exod. 1:16 ff., 22; 2:2 (Pharaoh’s attempt to exterminate the Israelites by destroy-
ing male infants); Exod. 12:5 (the Passover — lamb had to be a male without
blemish); and Lev. 1:3, 10; 4:23; 22:19; Mal. 1:14 (an connection with sacrifice);
Lev. 6:12(29), 37(7:6) (of priests); Lev. 18:22; 20:13 (in condemnation of homo-
sexual practices); Lev. 27:3, 5 ff. (an the valuation of the people); Num. 1 :3(2);
3:40 (in the census of the people); Num. 31:17f.; Jos. 17:2; Jdg. 21:11 f. (in
historical narratives); Job 3:3; Isa. 26:14; 66:7; Jer. 20:15; 37(30):6; Sir. 33:26
(23); 2 Macc. 7:21; 4 Macc. 15:30 (of males generally). The references to the male
and female correspond to those to man and woman generally in the OT. On the
one hand, there is the recognition in Gen. of the divinely instituted parity in that
man and woman together constitute the image of God, and their complementary
roles in the transmission of life in both the human and the animal realm. On the
other hand, there are certain réles (e.g. in receiving the covenant sign, in the priest-
hood, and in certain — sacrifices) that only the male may fill.
569
MAN
NT 1. The creative act in Gen. 1:27 is referred to in Matt. 19:4 par. Mk. 10:6 in
connection with — divorce. Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees takes it as the major
premise for his teaching on — marriage: ‘from the beginning he created them
male and female.” This leads to the minor premise quoted from Gen. 2:24: ‘‘for
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [Matt. also gives ‘‘and shall
cleave to his wife’’] and the two shall be one flesh”? (Matt. 19:5; Mk. 10:7 f.). The
conclusion is drawn: “‘So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore
God put together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6; Mk. 10:8 f.). Gen. 1:27
is also referred to in 1 Clem. 33:5 and 2 Clem. 14:2.
2. Lk. 2:23 tells how Jesus’ parents offered the sacrifice prescribed for males by
Exod. 13:2, 12 at his birth (— Bird).
3. Paul’s use of arsén is interesting in that it exhibits a tension between the crea-
tion ordinances and their abolition in the gospel age. By contrast the ungodly
have abolished the creation ordinances for sexual relations in a way which can
only bring judgment.
(a) In Rom. 1:27 arsén (v./. arrén) is used 3 times which RSV translates by
““men’’: “‘and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were
consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men
and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.’’ In this passage
sexual perversion is seen as a result of (and to that extent as a judgment on) man’s
sin in worshipping the creature rather than the creator. Because he has put some-
thing else in the place which can only properly belong to God, man’s natural
relationships have become perverted. Josephus also pointed out that unnatural
relations between males was punishable by death (Ap. 1, 199; cf. Lev. 20:13;
18:22, 29). On Rom. I generally, see G. Bornkamm, ‘““The Revelation of God’s
Wrath (Romans 1-3)”, Early Christian Experience, 1969, 47-70. Paul uses the
noun arsenokoités, a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite (—> Marriage, art. koité),
as one who 1s excluded from the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9) and condemned by the
law (1 Tim. 1:10; cf. Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13; Deut. 23:17; — Punishment).
(b) On the other hand, Gal. 3:28 asserts that ‘““There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in
Christ Jesus.” This, however, is not a call to abolish all earthly relationships. Rather,
it puts these relationships in the perspective of salvation history. As Paul goes on to
say, ‘And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to
promise” (Gal. 3:29; cf. also Rom. 10:2). All who are in Christ have the same
status before God; but they do not necessarily have the same function. In the
context of the — circumcision question in Gal., the assertion is doubly relevant.
For women could not be recipients of the sign which Judaizers were insisting as a
prerequisite for full salvation. There may also be an underlying Adam-typology in
the passage. Some rabbis asserted that Adam was originally androgynous (cf.
J. Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of St Paul’s Epistle, 1969, 326).
4. Rev. 12:5, 13 takes up the imagery of Isa. 66:7 and Ps. 2:9 in the vision of
the —> dragon’s attack on the woman with the male child: “she brought forth a
male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was
caught up to God and to his throne. . .. And when the dragon saw that he had been
thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child.”
Whereas the child is here clearly Christ, the woman, in the light of the following
570
MAN
verses, represents the mother of Jesus and also the church whose other “‘offspring”’
are now pursued by the dragon. C. Brown
—> Adam, — Blood, — Body, — Brother, — Child, — Earth, — Father, — Flesh,
—> Hand, — Head, — Heart, — Image, — Life, — Marriage, — Son, — Soul,
—> Spirit, — Woman
(a). J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961; and ‘‘Man and Nature — the Ecological
Controversy and the Old Testament’’, B/RL 55, 1972-73, 9 ff.; C. K. Barrett, From First Adam to
Last, 1962; K. Barth, Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5, SJT Occasional Papers 5,
1962; and CD III, 2 The Doctrine of Creation (volume dealing with man); G. C. Berkouwer, Man:
The Image of God, 1962; T. Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, 1960; N. P. Bratsiotis,
"t§, TDOT 1 222-35; E. Brunner, Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology, 1939; and The Christian
Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, Dogmatics II, 1952; R. Bultmann, ‘““Romans 7 and the
Anthropology of Paul’’, and ‘‘Man between the Times according to the New Testament’’, Existence
and Faith, (1961) 1964, 173-85, and 293-315; ‘““The Understanding of Man and the World in the
New Testament and in the Greek World”, and ‘““Adam where art Thou?” Essays Philosophical
and Theological, 1955, 67-89, and 119-32; D. Burkhard, ed., Man before God: Toward a Theology
of Man, 1966; E. de Witt Burton, Spirit, Soul and Flesh, 1918; S. Cave, The Christian Estimate of
Man, 1944; W. Eichrodt, Man in the Old Testament, SBT 4, 1951; and Theology of the Old Testa-
ment, II, 1967, 118-50, 231-495; J. de Fraine, Adam and the Family of Man, 1965; R. H. Gundry,
Soma in Biblical Theology with Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 29, 1976; D. Jenkins, The Glory of Man, Bampton Lectures for 1966,
1967; J. Jeremias, Adam, TDNTI 141 ff.; anthropos, TDNT 1 364-67; P. K. Jewett, Manas Male and
Female, 1975; R. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of the Use in Conflict Settings,
Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentumsund des Urchristentums, 10, 1971; A. R. Johnson, The
Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 19647; R. Koch and A. Deissler, ‘‘Man’’,
EBT 542-51; L. Kohler, Hebrew Man, (1956) 1973; W.G. Kimmel, Man in the New Testament, 1963;
J. Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man, 1895; R. Laurin, ‘“The Concept of Man asa Soul’, ExpT 72,
1960-61, 131-134; A. R. C. Leaney, ‘“‘The Doctrine of Man in 1 Corinthians’’, S/T 15, 1962, 394—99 ;
F. Maas, adam, TDOT I 75-87; S. V. McCasland, ‘‘ ‘The Image of God’ according to St. Paul’’,
JBL 69, 1950, 85-100; H. D. McDonald, J and He, 1966; E. L. Mascall, The Importance of Being
Human: Some Aspects of the Christian Doctrine of Man,1959;J. Moltmann, Man: Christian Anthro-
pology in the Conflicts of rhe present, 1974; D. W. Mork, The Biblical Meaning of Man, 1967; C. F.
D. Moule, Man and his Nature in the New Testament: Some Reflections on Biblical Ecology, (1964)
1967; R. Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man: A Christian Interpretation, II], 1941-43;
A. Oepke, anér, andrizomai, TDNT I 360-63; W. Pannenberg, What is Man? Contemporary
Anthropology in Theological Perspective, 1970; H. W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of
Man, (1911) 19263; H. H. Rowley, ‘“‘The Nature and Need of Man’, The Faith of Israel: Aspects
of Old Testament Thought, 1956, 74-98; E. C. Rust, Nature and Man in Biblical Thought, 1953;
R. P. Shedd, Man in Community, 1958; R. L. Shinn, Man: The New Humanism, New Direc-
tions in Theology Today, 6, 1968; C. R. Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Man, 1951; W. D. Stacey,
The Pauline View of Man, 1958; G. E. Whitlock, ‘““The Structure of Personality in Hebrew
Psychology: The Implication of the Hebrew View of Man for Psychology’’, Interpretation,
14, 1960, 3-13; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974; G. E. Wright, The Biblical
Doctrine of Man in Society, Ecumenical Biblical Studies 2, 1954; J. S. Wright, What is Man?
A Christian Assessment of the Powers and Functions of Human Personality, 1955, revised edition
re-issued under the title Mind, Man and the Spirits, 1967; W. Zimmerli, Man and his Hope in
the Old Testament, SBT Second Series 20, 1971.
(b). L. Adler, Der Mensch in der Sicht der Bibel, 1965; P. Althaus, Paulus und Luther tiber den Men- |
schen, 19634; E. Brandenburger, Adam und Christus, WMANT 7, 1962; N. P. Bratsiotis, basar,
TWAT | 850-67; F. Delitzsch, System der biblischen Psychologie, 18617; A.-M. Dubarle, ‘‘La
condition humaine dans |’Ancien- Testament’’, RB 63, 1956, 321 ff.; A. Flitner, ed., Wege zur
padagogischen Anthropologie, 1963; K. Galling, Das Bild vom Menschen in biblischer Sicht, 1947;
G. Gerlemann, basar, THAT I 376-79; W. Gutbrod, Die paulinische Anthropologie, 1934; M.
Hengel, ““Was ist der Mensch?” in H. W. Wolff, ed., Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von
Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, 1971, 116-35; E. Jiingel, ‘““Grenzen des Menschseins’’, in H. W. Wolff,
ed., op. cit., 199-205; E. Kasemann, Leib und Leib Christi, 1933; J. Kuhlewein, ’is, THAT J 130-38;
57]
MAN/MARK
J. Jervell, Imago Dei, FRLANT 58, 1960; W. D. Marsch, ‘‘Christliche Anthropologie und biolo-
gische Zukunft des Menschen’’, Past. Theologie 58, 1969, 91 ff.; H. Mehl-Koehnlein, L’ Homme
selon l’ Apétre Paul, 1951; H. Mynarek, Der Mensch, das Wesen der Zukunft, 1968; E. Otto, ‘“‘Der
Mensch als Geschopf und Bild Gottes in Agypten”, in H. W. Wolff, ed., op. cit., 335-48; H. van
Oyen, “‘Verantwortung und Norm in Hinblick auf die Situationsethik’”’, 7hZ 25, 1969, 91 ff.;
G. Pidoux, L’ Homme dans I’ Ancien Testament, 1953; G. von Rad, H. Schlier, E. Wolf, Der alte
und der neue Mensch, Aufsdatze zur theologischen Anthropologie, BEvTh 8, 1942; C. H. Ratschow,
A. S. Kapelrud, N. A. Dahl, ‘““Mensch”’, RGG® IV 860 ff.; L. Scheffczyk, ed., Der Mensch als
Bild Gottes, Wege der Forschung 124, 1969; K. H. Schelkle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, I,
1968, 91 ff.; J. N. Sevenster, “‘Die Anthropologie des Neuen Testaments’, Anthropologie Reli-
gieuse, Numen Supplements 2, 1955, 166-77; F. J. Stendebach, Der Mensch, wie ihn Israel vor
3000 Jahren sah, 1972; H. J. Stoebe, H. J. Wachs, W. Trillhaas, H. Plessner, ‘““Anthropologie’’,
EKL I 131 ff.; W. Zimmerli, Das Menschenbild des Alten Testaments, ThEH Neue Folge 14, 1949.
Mark, Brand
| arty | otipqa (stigma), mark, brand
CL stigma is related to the vb. stiz6, to prick, to mark with a pointed instrument,
and when applied to the flesh of men and animals, to brand, to tattoo.
Several well-defined areas of application are seen, as stigmata were used to mark
cattle and other animals as a protection against theft. Horses were so branded as a
mark of ownership (Aristophanes, Knights 602; Clouds 122, 1298: all referring to
sigma-brand). When stigmata were applied to the human body, this denoted a sign
of disgrace, suitable for deserters (Herodotus, 7, 233, 2: “branded with the king’s
marks’). Criminals were marked as a punishment (Plato, Laws 9, 854d) and es-
pecially slaves suffered this penalty if they ran away and were caught (Aristophanes,
Birds 760; Lysistrata 331) or broke the law in some other way (Diogenes Laertius,
4, 7, 46). The slave was called stigmatias, branded desperado, if he received this
penalty (Xenophon, Hellenica 5, 3, 24) and it is suggested that the letters used as a
brand on his hands or face were F(UG) for fugitivus or FUR for thief. In the 1m-
perial period the branding of slaves as a mark of ownership was practised. The
mark was usually placed on the forehead, whereas soldiers who enlisted in the
Roman army received a tattoo mark, in the shape of the abbreviated name of the
emperor, on their hand (Aetius Amidenus, Libri Medicinales 8, 12).
Stigmata were also applied as sign of religious devotion to the gods (Herodotus
2, 113, stigmata hiera, sacred marks; Lucian, Syr. Dea 59 “‘bearing stigmata”’ in
honour of the goddess).
oT The LXX has stigmata (used in the plur.) only once in the non-significant
passage of Cant. 1:11, ‘““ornaments [pointed pieces of jewelry] of gold.’ None-
theless, the idea behind the word is present in the OT in the several instances where
slaves were marked as a badge of ownership (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:16 f.); where
Cain is given a sign of Yahweh’s preservation of his life by a mark (Gen. 4:15);
where the remnant of Israelite faithful are marked with the Heb. letter Tau as a
pledge of their safety against the day of judgment (Ezek. 9:4; the letter Tau in
ancient script was a cross, a feature giving rise to later Christian speculation); and
especially where Yahweh’s people are bidden to inscribe his name on their hands
as a promise of fidelity (Isa. 44:5).
572
MARK
Real stigmata were expressly forbidden in Israel according to the rubric of Lev.
19:28. Only in her apostate days did Israel borrow this practice from the Gentile
nations (Jer. 16:6; 41:5; cf. Jer. 47:5; 48:37). True Yahwism is thus differentiated
from the fertility-cult practices of the nations in Canaan (1 Ki. 18:28). But I Ki.
20:41 may be an exception if the prophet had Yahweh’s “mark” on his forehead.
In the inter-testamental period Jews were branded by their captors (Ps.Sol. 2:6)
and slaves were branded to prevent their escape (T.Mak. 4:15). The Hellenistic
persecution of the Jews took the form of the forcible imposition of pagan symbols,
and Philo, Spec.Leg. 1, 58, regards the willing acceptance of a brand “‘with a red-hot
iron” as a hallmark of apostasy. Circumcision was commonly regarded as the
effective antidote to the desire to be tattooed, since the loyal Jew had this badge of
his membership of the elect race and needed no other religious marking. Marks
on bodies (in a figurative sense) and on grave sites in a literal fashion suggest a
protective claim to belong to Yahweh (see the use made of Ezek. 9:4 in the Damas-
cus Rule 9:10-12 of those who seek relief from the eschatological terror by the
possession of this sign, and in Ps.Sol. 15:6-9). The sign of the cross on Jewish
tombs and ossuaries is a development of Ezek. 9:4.
NT The single occurrence of the noun is in Gal. 6:17. Various possibilities of
meaning are: that Paul asserts by this reference his claim to ownership by the
Lord Jesus whose slave (doulos) he is; that he carries a badge of protection that
none of his enemies in Galatia can ignore with impunity. The Galatians would be
familiar with this idea of a religious teacher being under the care of the gods and so
immune from attack; that the stigmata are the Christian counterpart to Jewish
circumcision and are a sign of eschatological fulfilment marking out the new Israel
(Gal. 6:16) as the true circumcision as in Phil. 3:3. On this verse Dibelius com-
ments: ““The thought is not that of a bodily mark but of the church’s consciousness
of being the new people of God’’. See too Rom. 2:25-29 and Col. 2:11-13.
The stigmata are not to be seen as symbols however (such as Paul’s having
tattooed the sign of the cross or the name of Jesus on his flesh). Rather they are
scars and wounds received in his missionary service on behalf of the Gentile
churches as the eschatological apostle (Col. 1:24; Eph. 3:1, 13).
Marking of God’s people in Rev. 7:2 f.; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4 with seals is a meta-
phorical usage (— charagma). R. P. Martin
| xa payLua | yapaya (charagma), mark, stamp, graven object.
CL The underlying vb. charassd, to cut to a point, then to inscribe, which is the
meaning in Sir. 50:27 and in one version of Ezek. 4:1 (LXX) where it translates
the MT hgqg. The noun means a mark, a sign caused by engraving, etching, or
branding.
The vb. charass6 means to cut to a point, to sharpen, in Hesiod, Works and Days
387, 573 (‘‘whet the sickle’’). The later technical sense of inscribing on wood, stone,
brass is attested. Then, in a specialized meaning, it describes the casting of a die,
and so the minting of coins. In the Hellenistic papyri anything written down on
writing material is dia charagmaton. This phrase in P. Lond. 5, 1658, 8 seems to
573
MARK
mean “I pray for your health in this letter’? (so Ghedini, referred to in Moulton-
Milligan). Ownership of property is secured by the brand-mark (charagma).
Documents are validated as true by the imposition of a stamp or seal (charagma).
Imperial decrees are shown to be genuine by the same token. Currency carries the
impress (charagma) as a sign of its genuineness, so Plutarch, Agesilaus, 15:6; De
Lysandro 16:2; and P.Oxy. 1, 144, 6: ‘“‘gold in stamped money’’, i.e. in coins
(chrysou en obryz6 charagmati).
OT charagma does not appear in LXX but the vb. charasso occurs in the texts noted
above. In 3 Macc. 2:29 charagma is used for Jewish markings with pagan cult
symbols. Cf. Ps.Sol. 15:8-10 where the righteous who are loyal to Israel’s heritage
are “marked” for God.
NT In Rev. 13:11—18 there is an apparent reference to the imperial priesthood
under the figure of the second beast. It requires that universal recognition and
homage be given to the ‘“‘first beast’ (the imperial line). The image of the emperor
is made to speak (v. 15). The counterpart to this claim to divinity is that all trading
is possible only as men have the “‘mark” (charagma) of the first beast on their right
hand or forehead. That “‘mark’’ is identified with the beast’s — name or — number
(v. 18). Contrast Rev. 7:3 ff. where a similar “‘mark’’ denotes divine protection.
In 13:16 ff. it signifies the “‘protection”’ of Satan.
This stigmatization was common in the ancient world (— stigma), denoting
ownership and preservation. Repeatedly in the Apocalypse the charagma tou
thériou, mark of the beast, denotes subservience to anti-Christian powers (14:9;
20:4; cf. 13:17; 14:11; 16:2; 19:20). This situation is matched by a “‘sign’”’ from
God (7:1-8) and wrath is threatened to all who bear the first mark (14:9, 11). Those
who do not wear the satanic mark are promised the right to judge the evil powers
(20:4).
In Acts 17:19 charagma is used in the sense of handiwork, creation, produced by
the artist or craftsman. R. P. Martin
CL Cognate nouns are kaustérion (P.Lond. 2, 391, 7 ff.) meaning kiln and kautérion,
branding iron. The vb. means to burn with hot iron, to brand.
Branding iron (kautérion) is possibly attested in Euripides, Fr. 815 (conj.), while
the vb. is found in Strabo, Geog. 5, 1, 9: “‘a great herd of unbranded [akautériaston|
horses’’, and in a possible reading in BGU, III, 952, 4 (Wilcken’s reconstructed
text 1s: [kaustéria|zousi tén gypson).
OT The LXX does not have the vb., but 4 Macc. 15:22 has kautérion in the sense
of branding iron.
NT The sole NT occurrence is 1 Tim. 4:2. False teachers have their conscience
“branded [kekaustériasmenon]’. The brand mark is the sign of ownership (—
stigma), and the condition of these heretics is probably that of men who are
574
MARK/MARRIAGE
possessed by Satan and demonic forces. Alternatively it means that their conscience
is “‘cauterized”’, or “‘seared’”’ (RSV), i.e. made insensible to moral distinctions.
— Cross, — Image R. P. Martin
On stigma:
(a). Arndt, 776; O. Betz, stigma, TDNT VII 657-64; M. Black, ‘““The Chi-Rho Sign — Christogram
and/or Staurogram?” in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel,
Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce, 1970, 319-27; T. W. Crafer, ‘“‘The Stoning
of St. Paul”, The Expositor, 8th Series 6, 1913, 375-84; A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, 1909, 349 ff.;
E. Dinkler, ““Comments on the History of the Symbol of the Cross”, Journal for Theology and the
Church 1, 1965, 124-45; J. H. Moulton, ‘““The Marks of Jesus’”’, ExpT 21, 1909-10, 283 f.; Moulton-
Milligan, 590; W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians,
1900, 472 ff.
(b). F.-J. Délger, Sphragis, 1911, 39 ff.; and ‘“‘Beitrage zur Geschichte des Kreuzzeichens”’, Jahrbuch
fiir Antike und Christentum 1958-61; A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, Theologischer
Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 1964?, 163-66; O. Schmitz, Die Christus-Gemeinschaft des
Paulus im Lichte seines Genitivusgebrauchs, 1924, 185-94.
On charagma:
(a). A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1927, 341; and Bible Studies, 1909, 240-47;
Moulton-Milligan, 683; U. Wilckens, charagma, TDNT IX, 416 f. Commentaries on Revelation
by R. H. Charles, I-II, JCC, 1920; and G. R. Beasley-Murray, New Century Bible, 1974.
(b). E. Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT 16, 1926, 19708; and E. Lohse, Die
Offenbarung des Johannes, NTD 11, 1960, on Rev. 13:8; E. Stauffer, ‘‘666’’, in Coniectanea Neo-
testamentica 11, 1947, 237 ff.
On kaustériazo:
(a). Moulton-Milligan, 339; J. Schneider, Kaustériazomai, TDNT III 644 f. Commentaries on the
Pastoral Epistles by M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, Hermeneia, 1973; B.S. Easton, 1947; E. K.
Simpson, 1954; J. N. D. Kelly, Harper-BNTC, 1963.
(b). SB III 579: C. Spicq, Les Epitres Pastorales, 19694.
Marriage, Adultery, Bride, Bridegroom
2 VALLE (gamed), marry; yad“os (gamos), wedding; yayiC@
| payee B | (gamizo), give in marriage; yaLiok@ (gamisko), give in
yay
marriage.
CL gameo is derived from the root gam- or gem-, to fit together, pair. The root is
possibly related to gennad, beget, bring forth. The noun gamos means
wedding, marriage, consummation of marriage, whether regarded as temporary or
permanent, the wedding feast. The vb. gamed means to marry, celebrate a wedding,
have sexual relations. gamizé and gamisko are later forms meaning give in marriage,
i.e. a daughter.
Even though we may find numerous traces of polygamy and polyandry in the
Gk. myths, monogamy predominated in the Gk. world in the historical period.
Morality within marriage was strict. The Homeric hero had one wife, who was
faithful and inviolable, a good manager of the home and mother. Gk. marriage
was monogamous. On the other hand, the man had great freedom. He could have
concubines or have relations with harlots (~ Discipline, art. porneud CL). Adultery
in the Gk. states and under Roman law was severely punished, especially in the
case of the woman (cf. OCD 10 f., 649 f.).
In the Hellenistic period marriage morals had become generally looser. There
575
MARRIAGE
was much prostitution in the towns, especially in the ports, above all in Corinth.
The oriental cults had introduced sacred prostitution. Sexual relationships with the
priestesses became part of the cultus and granted a sharing in the divine, and were
referred to by the term hieros gamos, sacred marriage.
OT |. The terms gameo and gamos are only seldom found in the LXX. gamos (Heb.
misteh) occurs in the canonical books only at Gen. 29:22; Est. 2:18; 9:22. The
OT law contains no prescribed form of marriage ceremony. In spite of this, marriage
is in fact of great importance. Both in primeval history and in that of the patriarchs
the history of tribes and people is narrated as family histories. In the genealogies
(e.g. Gen. 5) marriage and the begetting of children (especially males) are the most
important features of the lives mentioned. Even though from — Abraham down
to the kings there is evidence for polygamy (e.g. Gen. 16:1 ff.; 25:6; 29:21—30; 1
Sam. 18:27; 25:42 f.; 2 Sam. 3:2-5), monogamy occupies the central position,
especially in those passages that are important for our understanding of marriage.
It is presupposed in Gen. 1:26 ff. and 2:18-24. The royal law in Deut. also de-
mands of the king that “‘he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn
away” (Deut. 17:17; cf. 1 Ki. 11:1-11).
In the OT marriage is clearly regarded from the husband’s standpoint and serves
above all for the begetting of offspring (cf. Gen. 1:28). In order to achieve this end
a man might take another wife (cf. Gen. 16:1 ff., ~ Abraham; levirate marriage,
Deut. 25:5-10, but note Lev. 20:21; — 5 below). At the same time the wife is loved
and taken seriously as a partner (Gen. 2:23 f.). She is a partner in a sexual and
personal sense (Gen. 1:27 f.) and in the second creation narrative she is described
as a “‘helper’’ (Heb. ‘ézer; LXX boéthos) (Gen. 2:18b). The partnership continues
in the fall and in the problems of sexuality created by it (Gen. 3).
2. Adultery was severely punished in the OT (Deut. 22:22-27; Exod. 20:14;
Lev. 18:20; 20:10; Deut. 5:18). Even adultery committed unwittingly is hateful to
God (Gen. 20:3-7). Adultery was also understood as a feature of paganism; God’s
people were to be fundamentally different in sexual practices and marriage (cf.
1 Cor. 6:12-20; 5:9-12). This prepares us for the prophetic picture of marriage for
man’s relationship to God (see below 3).
Originally — divorce depended solely on the man (cf. Deut. 24:1-4; Jer. 3:8),
but later it became possible also for the woman (Elephantine). The many laws
about the various sexual offences show how the elemental power of sexuality, which
threatens the family and society, should be restrained and directed into the channels
willed by God. Especially in the later period concern was felt with the problem of
mixed marriages with foreigners which were forbidden (Deut. 7:3 f.; 20:16 ff.;
21:10 ff.; Ezr. 9 f.), though earlier cases of such marriages are exemplified (Gen.
41:45, Joseph; Exod. 2:21; Num. 12:1, Moses; Jdg. 14:1; 2 Sam. 11:3). Heathen
marriages undermined allegiance to Yahweh especially in the case of Solomon
(1 Ki. 11:1-11).
3. If adultery was a violation of the divine law and so also an offence against the
— covenant, participation in the Canaanite fertility rites was an offence against both
marriage and God. Hosea was the first to express the people’s apostasy as harlotry
and a breach of the marriage bond between God and Israel, and he did it more
clearly than any other (Hos. 1 ff.; cf. Jer. 2:2, 10, 25; 3:1-25; Ezek. 16, 23; Isa.
576
MARRIAGE
50:1). His own act in marrying a harlot at the divine behest (Hos. 1:2) was sym-
bolic of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel. It is mercy, stretching far beyond all
law, which causes God not to annihilate or cast off his people, as the law of marriage
demanded, but to turn to them again in spite of all their disloyalty and even to
promise them a new covenant. W. Gtinther
4. The law contained certain forbidden degrees of marriage and sexual inter-
course (Lev. 18:6-—18). The Israelite was forbidden “‘to uncover the nakedness’”’
of his mother, stepmother, sister or half-sister, grand-daughter, daughter of a
stepmother, aunt, daughter-in-law, brother’s wife (unless she died childless, see
levirate marriage, below 5), a woman and her daughter, a woman and her grand-
daughter, two sisters at the same time, or mother-in-law. Intercourse during men-
struation was forbidden, as was adultery generally, homosexual practices and
defilement with animals (Lev. 18:19-33). Certain of these offences were punishable
by death (Deut. 27:20-—23), whereas in other instances there is the warning that the
offending parties shall bear their iniquity and die childless (Lev. 12:12—-18; 20:19 ff.;
but cf. also the story of Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah, who bore twins to
him, Gen. 38).
In addition, certain prohibitions were attached to the priesthood. The high-priest
was permitted to marry only a virgin selected from his own people (Lev. 21:13 f.),
and priests were forbidden to marry prostitutes and divorced women (21:7). Num.
36:5-9 contains a prohibition against an heiress marrying outside her own tribe
(cf. Tob. 7:10).
A man who falsely accused his bride of not being a virgin could be fined a hundred
shekels, whipped, and compelled to take her as his wife (Deut. 22:13-19). But if
his accusation proved true, the woman was to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:20 f.).
A man who raped a virgin who was already betrothed (in open country where she
could not summon help) was liable to the death penalty (Deut. 22:25 ff.). But in
the case of a woman who was not betrothed, the man was to take her as his wife
and pay the girl’s father the sum of fifty shekels (Deut. 22:28 f.).
5. The so-called levirate marriage (from the Lat. /evir, brother-in-law) refers to
the marriage of a man with his deceased brother’s widow in the event of his dying
childless. The widow was not to remarry outside the family and the unmarried
brother was to perform the duties of a husband to her to raise up children to the
deceased, in order to perpetuate his name in Israel. If the man refused, the woman
was entitled to subject him to public disgrace before the elders (Deut. 25:5—10).
The practice was not peculiar to the Jews in their early history. It has been found
among numerous Eastern peoples, particularly in Arabia and the Caucasus. The
OT contains two instances of the practice. In the patriarchal period Onan deli-
berately spilled his semen on the ground, lest the offspring should be counted as
his brother’s. His own subsequent death was pronounced a divine judgment on him
(Gen. 38:8 ff.). The book of Ruth tells the story of Ruth offering herself to Boaz,
believing him to be the nearest kinsman to her deceased husband. However, Boaz
at first declined on the grounds that there was a nearer kinsman. Only when
the latter refused did Boaz take Ruth to wife (Ruth. 4:1-13). (On Ruth see
further H. H. Rowley, ““The Marriage of Ruth’, in The Servant of the Lord and
Other Essays on the Old Testament, 1965", 169-94; D. A. Leggett, The Levirate and
577
MARRIAGE
Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth,
1974; S. B. Parker, ‘““The Marriage Blessing in Israelite and Ugaritic Literature’’,
JBL 95, 1976, 23-30).
The practice of levirate marriage seems to be presupposed in the question of the
Sadducees concerning the marital status in the resurrection of a woman who had
married seven brothers each dying childless (Matt. 22:22-33; Mk. 12:18—27; Lk.
20: 27-38). Jesus’ reply rebuked the Sadducees for not knowing the scriptures
_ or the power of God. For in the resurrection the present marital relationships with
their physical ties are transcended and the dead raised are like the angels (hds
angeloi, Matt. 22:30, Mk. 12:25; isangeloit, Lk. 20:36). Nevertheless, they live
because God is the God of the living (Matt. 22:32; Mk. 12:27; Lk. 20:38; cf.
Exod. 3:6).
6. No restrictions on the age of marriage are given in the OT, though early
marriage is sometimes spoken of with approval (Prov. 2:17; 5:18; Isa. 62:5). In
the patriarchal age it was considered the duty of the bridegroom’s father to secure
a bride for his son (Gen. 24:3; 38:6; Exod. 2:21; but cf. Gen. 21:21 when this fell
to the mother). The selection of the bride was followed by formal betrothal,
confirmed by oaths and a dowry (Heb. mohar, Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam.
18:25). The OT law contained no formal marriage ceremony. Gen. 29:22, 27
suggests that the custom at the time of Jacob was for a feast to be given by the
bride’s father at which the bride was given to the groom. The union was then con-
summated. The feast could last as long as seven and even fourteen days (cf. Jdg.
14:12; Tob. 8:19). The fact that Jacob was permitted after seven days to take
Laban’s other daughter, Rachel, in addition to Leah, suggests that polygamy was
openly countenanced. Certain passages suggest a ratification by oath (Prov. 2:17;
Ezek. 16:8; Mal. 2:14) and that a blessing was pronounced (Gen. 24:60; Ruth.
4:11 f.). The OT expression “‘to take a wife’’ seems to express the literal truth of
what happened (Num. 12:1; 1 Chron. 2:21; cf. the action of Ruth in approaching
Boaz, Ruth 3:6 ff.). The action was normally expressed in the ceremonial taking
of the bride from her father’s house to that of the bridegroom or his father. The
practice of companions attending the groom (Jdg. 14:11) seems to have continued
in the NT period (Matt. 19:15). He was preceded by singers or musicians (Gen.
31:27; Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 1 Macc. 9:39) and accompanied by torch-bearers or lamp-
bearers (2 Esd. 10:2; Jer. 25:10; Matt. 25:7; Rev. 18:23). The bride awaited the
groom with her maidens who conducted the whole party back to his own home
(Matt. 25:6; Cant. 3:11). In NT times and no doubt earlier friends and neighbours
participated in the feast that then took place (Matt. 22:1-10; Lk. 14:8; Jn. 2:2). A
newly betrothed man was exempt from military service for a year lest he be killed
in battle (Deut. 20:7). Similarly, the newly married man was exempt from military
service and any public business that might take him away from his wife for a whole
year (Deut. 24:5).
7. There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT
times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic
and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod
the Great (37-4 B.c.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a
considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristo-
cracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued
578
MARRIAGE
practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was
countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel. For detailed
evidence of polygamy see J. Leipold, Jesus und die Frauen, 1921, 44-49. The
practice of taking a second wife, if there was dissension with the first, was evidently
often due to the high price fixed in the marriage contract which made divorce
prohibitive (Yeb. 63b). According to the investigations of H. Grandqvist, in the
village of Aretas near Bethlehem twelve out of 112 married men had more than one
wife (Marriage Conditions in a Palestinian Village, II, 1935, 205).
8. According to Philo, the Essenes condemned marriage (Hypothetica 11, 14).
Josephus reported that they disdained marriage, although one order of Essenes
allowed it so as to propagate the race (War 2, 8, 2 and 13). The Community Rule
(1 QS) is curiously silent on the subject, but the Messianic Rule permits sexual
relations, i.e. Marriage, on reaching maturity, i.e. the age of twenty (1QSa 1:6-11).
M. Black sees in the Essene attitude an underlying tendency to regard all sexual
functions and relations as unclean (The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the
Jewish Background of the New Testament, 1961, 29). Total renunciation meant
complete holiness, especially in a priestly sect. It may also be connected with the
idea of the consecration of the warrior in the holy war (cf. The War Scroll, 1QM),
the protest against the corrupt temple priesthood (cf. CD 8:8-—18) and the Pharisaic
permission of divorce (op. cit., 29-32; cf. also A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of
Qumran and its Meaning, 1966, 31ff., 170f., 211). C. Brown
NT 1. The use of this word-group in the NT can hardly be distinguished from that
in secular Gk. On principle the words are not used in the NT for extra-marital
relationships. In Matt. 22:11 f. the gen. gamou is used for the adj. in the expression
endyma gamou, wedding garment.
For the OT, Palestinian rabbinism and for Gk. Hellenistic civilization marriage
and married life are self-evident institutions, and so they are taken for granted in
the NT. Hence, the verb (e.g. Mk. 6:17; Lk. 14:20), and the noun (Jn. 2:1 f.) are
used without any theological connotation.
The NT deals with questions concerning the relationship of men and woman
far more frequently than the use of this word-group might suggest (~ Woman;
— > Divorce; — Discipline, art. porneud; — Join, Cleave to; and below — art.
nymphé). Sexual offences are fundamental offences against marriage. The fact that
they are repeatedly mentioned in lists of sins shows that they are especially signs
that sin is dependence on the sarx (— Flesh).
2. Marriage as an institution is clearly presupposed in the NT. It is not based on
human regulations but on God’s commandment. This is shown by the frequent
references to the creation story (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; cf. Mk. 10:6f.; Matt. 19:4f.;
1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31). It always refers to the shared life of a man with a woman.
Though the NT also essentially looks on marriage from the man’s standpoint (as the
kephalé, head, 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23), the Gk. and the OT traditions are so
transcended that the man’s special rights fall away, and throughout the NT the
shared life of husband and wife stands in the foreground (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3; Eph.
5:21-33; Col. 3:18 f.). The NT attacks both — divorce and sexual impurity
(— Discipline). In one place there is also an attack on false teachers who in fana-
tical exaggeration forbade marriage (1 Tim. 4:3). An unbroken marriage is assumed
579
MARRIAGE
as something self-evident for the Christian (Matt. 5:27-31; 19:9; Mk. 10:11 f.;
Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10-16; 1 Thess. 4:4; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Heb. 13:4).
3. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus speaks about the seventh commandment
(Matt. 5:27 f.; cf. Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). In the dawning kingdom of God
adultery is a sin which shows that one’s heart is attached to man, not to God. In
God’s sight the lustful eye and the desiring thought are reckoned as the completed
act. The pericope concerning the woman taken in adultery is not in the oldest
manuscripts of Jn. (Jn. 7:53-8:11), but nevertheless belongs to an early tradition.
It shows Jesus, the Judge, as the Saviour who is prepared to forgive this sin also.
Thereby he showed himself to be the sovereign Lord of Creation, of its order and
of the Law. On this passage see also J. D. M. Derrett, ‘““The Woman Taken in
Adultery”, Law in the New Testament, 1970, 156-88.
In the same context (Matt. 5:31 f.) Jesus speaks also of — divorce. In the law
Deut. 24:1 in principle permits divorce, but there was controversy among the rabbis
as to the grounds which justified it (Matt. 19:3; cf. SB I 303 ff.; IJ 23 f.). Jesus,
however, met this permission in principle with a radical prohibition (Mk. 10: 2-2).
Only in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 is divorce permitted on the grounds of porneia,
unchastity (— Discipline, art. porneud). The question of divorce occupies a rela-
tively important place in the NT (Mk. 10:2-12; Matt. 19:3-9; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor.
7:10 f.). The fundamental rejection of divorce is based on God’s command and
order (Matt. 19:5 f.). (For further discussion — Divorce.)
4. Facing the question of the Sadducees concerning the status in the resurrection
of a wife who had had more than one husband (Matt. 22:23-33; Mk. 12:18-27,
Lk. 20:27-—38) Jesus pointed to God and the dawning kingdom, where the problem
raised by the scribes would lose all relevance, for marriage as an institution would
then no longer exist. Jesus’ statements are always to be understood in the light of
the fact that the new age was dawning in his person (cf. Matt. 24:38; Lk. 17:26).
In other words, passages like Matt. 19:9-12 do not simply proclaim the end of the
OT marriage law. It is rather a question of the correct interpretation of this law and
grasping God’s will for this eschatological age. Jesus was in the perspective of
Matthew, as it were, the second Moses, the law-giver of the eschatological era. The
question concerning — eunuchs (Matt. 19:12) is also to be understood eschato-
logically. The exigencies of the times call for celibacy from those who have the gift.
Those who had received it could voluntarily renounce marriage, for such a step
was seen as necessary for the service of God (dia tén basileian, for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven). John the Baptist, and later Paul, remained unmarried. They
show symbolically that marriage is only something provisional in the light of the
coming kingdom (cf. | Cor. 7:1-9, 26-29).
5. Both in the OT and among Jesus’ contemporaries a wedding was the occasion
for a festive meal. Hence gamos can also mean the wedding feast; such a feast
is described in Jn. 2:1-11. In Matt. 22:1-14 Jesus uses a royal wedding feast as a
parable. As background for it we have the parallelism of God and the king, the
concept of the eschatological feast (cf. Isa. 25:6), the Rab. picture of the marriage
feast of the messiah with his people (SB I 517), the exposition of Cant. as expressing
the love between Yahweh and his people, and the prophetic picture of marriage to
represent the relationship between Yahweh and Israel given from Hosea on.
Earthly marriage is to be superseded by the eschatological union of God with his
580
MARRIAGE
people. As the messiah Jesus is the true bridegroom (— art. nymphé). The decisive
factor is sharing his feast (Matt. 25:1-13; cf. Lk. 12:36-40). The record of the
institution of the — Lord’s Supper (especially Matt. 26:29; Lk. 22:30) links the
messianic meal with the explanation of the death of Jesus. The marriage feast of the
—> Lamb (Rev. 19:7 ff.) means the final union of the triumphant Christ with his
own.
6. (a) Arising out of certain happenings in the Corinthian church Paul deals in
1 Cor. 5 ff. with various questions concerning marriage. He starts with a warning
against all kinds of unchastity, and then deals with marriage itself. He appeals to
the word of Jesus and rejects divorce (1 Cor. 7:10; cf. Mk. 10:9 ff. par. Matt.
19:6-9; Lk. 16:18). Paul looks on marriage as secondary when compared to faith.
He goes so far as to recommend celibacy as a special gift in the light of the near end
(7:1, 7; cf. Matt. 19:12). Marriage, like all worldly activity, stands under the hds
mé, as if not (7:29 ff.); those who have should live as if they had not. This is the
stand point from which the question of mixed marriages with unbelievers is handled
(7:12-16). The unbelieving partner is to decide whether it is to continue. The
Christian partner, on the other hand, should be prepared to let it continue, i.e.
only the heathen partner has freedom of choice. The consecration of such a mixed
marriage by the believing partner is to be understood as a very real power, for here
grace 1s stronger than the unbelief of the heathen partner. It is the means of bringing
the children within the covenant relationship, for otherwise they would be unclean.
It may also result in the salvation of the unbelieving partner.
The meaning of 1 Cor. 7:36 ff. is not absolutely clear. We do not know whether
it refers to a couple living together ascetically in so-called spiritual marriage, to
whom Paul is giving permission later to enter into full physical union, or to a
father (or a guardian or master) who did not wish to offend against custom or
Rab. command by not marrying off his daughter (ward, slave-girl) at the usual age
(cf. A. Robertson and A. Plummer, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians,
ICC, 1911, 159; SB III 376 f.). The use of the verb gamizo, give in marriage, in v. 38
makes the second interpretation more probable. gamizd, a synonym of gamisko, is
found in the NT only in Matt. 22:30; 24:38; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 17:27; 20:20:34 f.;
1 Cor. 7:38. Except in the last passage it clearly means to give in marriage. It is
a term that is normally applied only to the father, guardian or owner who gives a
girl under his control in marriage to another man. The interpretation that we are
here dealing with a spiritual marriage can be held only if one assumes that gamizd
here is equivalent to gameo (cf. Arndt). AV, RV, Weymouth, Knox, JB, NEB mg
all take gamizé as give in marriage; Moffatt, Phillips, RSV, NEB tx take it as
equivalent to gameo. —> hyperakmos below. On the interpretation of | Tim. ae ZeNZ
and Tit. 1:6 — Man, art. anér NT 3.
(b) Paul also saw marriage as a picture of man’s relationship to God. In Rom.
9:25 f. he quotes Hos. 2:23 alluding to the names of Hosea’s children /6’ ruhamah
(Not Pitied) and /6’ ‘ammi (Not my People) (cf. Hos. 1:6 ff.). For despite these
names Yahweh will nevertheless have pity on his people and restore them. Paul sees
in this promise grounds for the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God. He uses
_ the picture of marriage in 2 Cor. 11:2 to warn against apostasy. It is reversed in
Eph. 5:22 ff. Because Christ is the bridegroom of the church, marriage should be
held holy. In Eph. 5:32 the marriage relationship is described as a mystérion,
581
MARRIAGE
which is symbolic of the relationship of Christ to the church. It is all the more reason
why husbands and wives should love one another. The picture of marriage lies also
behind the expression “‘adulterous generation” (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mk. 8:38). It is
possible that these passages are referring to the factual moral conditions among the
people, but the context and OT linguistic usage suggest that Jesus was alluding to
the people’s attitude to God (— Generation). ‘““The woman Jezebel” (Rev. 2:20 ff.)
and “‘the great harlot’ (Rev. 17:1) are pictures of the great apostasy from God, the
great Husband and Lord. The former alludes to the wife of King Ahab who served
Baal and sought the life of — Elijah (1 Ki. 16:31; 18:4, 13; 19:1 f.; 21:5-25; 2 Ki.
9:7-37). The church at Thyatira is warned against tolerating the woman Jezebel
(i.e. those who practice and teach things characterized by her name). The great
harlot is identified as — Babylon (17:5) who typifies the world. W. Guinther
Aa LLolyéd@ (moicheud), commit adultery ; wolyeta (moicheia),
| worzedo | adultery; porydc (moichos), adulterer; potyadic (moi-
chalis), adulteress, prostitute.
CL moicheu6é and its Doric counterpart moichad mean to commit adultery (with
acc.). Sometimes they are used more generally, seduce a woman, violate;
hence in mid. let oneself be seduced, in pass. be seduced to adultery. The derivatives
include moicheia, adultery, harlotry (cf. porneia — Discipline); moichos, Adulterer;
moichalis, first an adj. meaning adulterous, and, secondly, a noun meaning adulter-
ess, harlot.
Adultery was punishable already in the old law codes going back to the second
millennium B.c., e.g. the Lipit-Ishtar Code, the Code of Hammurabi, the old Ass.
laws (cf. ANET, 159 ff., 163-88). Every form of sexual relationship outside marriage
was forbidden to the wife, for she was the real guarantor of the integrity of the
family and clan, and by adultery she broke her own marriage and she destroyed the
integrity of the whole clan. A man on the contrary committed adultery only by
sexual relationships with a married woman, i.e. when breaking into another’s
arrangement. At the same time traces of older concepts behind these legal views
from different cultures may be detected: (a) adultery with a married woman in-
volves an offence against property, 1.e. the invasion of the area of another’s posses-
sions, and (b) the woman committing adultery opens the clan to the influence of
evil powers. The punishment of adultery by death, ill-treatment or the payment of
an expiatory fine was normally left to the private initiative of the wronged husband
or of his clan.
oT 1. The LXX uses the Gk. word-group for Heb. nd@’ap and its derivatives. There
adultery, as in other societies, covered (i) every extra-marital sexual relationship
by a married woman; (ii) the extra-marital sexual relationship of a man with a
married or engaged woman (Gen. 16:1-4; 30:1-4; 38:15 f.; Lev. 19:20 ff.; Deut.
22:28 f. are examples of extra-marital sexual relationships by a man). Adultery
was punishable by death, normally by stoning (but cf. Gen. 38:24), of both
parties (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22 ff.; Ezek. 16:40; cf. Jn. 8:5). In contrast to
usage outside Israel (see above CL) adultery was a matter of public concern, since it
offended not only against the foundations and personal rights of marriage and
582
MARRIAGE
family but also against the law of God (Exod. 20:14) and so threatened the basis
of the people’s existence (Deut. 22:22b). Hence, the punishment had to be inflicted
by the community. If a woman was suspected of adultery a test of guilt or inno-
cence was prescribed (Num. 5:11—31) to be carried out by the priests who required
her to take an oath of innocence and drink the water containing the ashes of a
cereal offering.
2. In Hosea’s life and message marriage and adultery are used allegorically
for the relationship between Yahweh and his people (—> gameo OT 2, NT 6 (b)). The
actual reason for the use of this picture may well have been the introduction of
Canaanite wedding and fertility rites into Israel’s life (4:12 ff.; 9:1 ff.). When
Israel separated from Yahweh and sacrificed to strange gods, the nation acted as an
adulteress who leaves her husband and plays the harlot with other men (2:2 ff.
[MT 2:4 ff.]). God would severely punish this adultery (5:7 ff.), but this would not
have as its purpose the complete destruction of the adulteress but her repentance
(3:5). This picture was later taken up by Jeremiah (cf. Jer. 2:2; 3:1-10; 5:7; 13:22,
26) and by Ezekiel during the exile (cf. Ezek. 16:1-63; 23:37-45).
3. The very serious warnings against adultery in the wisdom literature (cf. Prov.
6:20-35; cf. Sir. 25:2) show a weakening of strict marriage morality in the course
of Israel’s history (cf. especially Prov. 6:35, which suggests compensation by money
payment, and Mal. 2:14 ff.). It is the mark of the fool to be led astray by the harlot.
His action will bring not only disgrace but also ruin and judgment (cf. also Prov.
2:16 ff.; 7:5-27; 30:20). The serious social consequences of adultery were also a
cause for concern.
4. There are also stern warnings in Test. XII (Test.Jos. 4:6 ff.; 5:1), Philo
(Decal. 121 f., 124, 126, 129, 131), the Mishnah (especially the Tractate Sotah’
[The Adulteress]), and the Talmud (see further 7DNT IV 731 f.). In Roman times
the death penalty was no longer exacted (cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society
and Roman Law in the New Testament, 19657, 40 f.; TDNT IV 732 f.).
NT The word-group is used in the NT with the same meaning, both direct and
metaphorical, as in secular Gk. sometimes quoting Exod. 20:14 (Deut. 5:18),
e.g. Matt. 19:18 f.; Mk. 10:19; Lk. 18:20; Jas. 2:11; Rom. 13:9.
1. At the same time the NT’s understanding of marriage and hence of adultery is
carried forward to a position known neither to secular Gk. nor the OT. (a) Adultery
in the man is unreservedly measured by the same standards as in the woman (Matt.
5:32; Mk. 10:11 f.; Lk. 16:18). (b) The desire, i.e. the willingness to commit the
act, is equivalent to adultery itself (Matt. 5:27f.). (c) Since the NT considers
marriage by its nature to be indissoluble (Mk. 10:8), remarriage following divorce
permitted by the OT on the grounds of the hardness of men’s hearts enters the
realm of adultery (Matt. 5:31 f.; 19:9). Admittedly, marriage in Matt. 5 is con-
sidered from the standpoint of the wife and its breach is judged accordingly (cf.
Rom. 7:3 with cL and oT | above). In Matt. 19:9, however, Jesus applies the state-
ment also to the man who divorces his wife, marries again, and so commits adultery.
In both passages, in contrast to Mk. 10:11 f., Lk. 16:18, Matt. recognizes an excep-
tion on the grounds of porneia that permits divorce (— Discipline, art. porneud;
—> Divorce). (d) Adultery is incompatible with the hope of life in the kingdom of
God (1 Cor. 6:9f), and is under God’s judgment (Heb. 13:4). It is therefore
583
MARRIAGE
characteristic that a destructive libertinism (2 Pet. 2:14) goes hand in hand with
doubts about the return of Christ and the judgment to follow (2 Pet. 3:3-7).
2. Jesus’ severe condemnation of adultery does not exclude God’s mercy to the
repentant sinner, whose conversion he desires (Matt. 21:13 f.; Lk. 18:9-14; cf. 1
Cor. 6:9 ff.). The adulteress, who had earned the death-penalty, had her guilt
forgiven while the apparently guiltless multitude had a mirror held up to their
hypocritical self-righteousness (Jn. 8:3-11). At the same time the impenitent
perverts are excluded from the kingdom (1 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8;
22:15).
3. The theme of adultery is used in the NT in a metaphorical sense as in OT
prophecy (cf. Jas. 4:4), where adulterers (moichalides; RSV “‘unfaithful creatures !’’)
are lovers of the world. Similarly Israel is called ‘“‘an evil and adulterous genera-
tion [genea ponéra kai moichalis|” as it is typified by its religious representatives;
—> Pharisees and scribes (Matt. 12:39), —- Sadducees (Matt. 16:4). Although some
expositors see in the phrase a judgment on the factual, moral situation, a meta-
phorical explanation is probable. This contemporary — generation, a people
shown to be disloyal to God by its rejection of Jesus (cf. Mk. 8:38), is characterized
by its desire for a — sign when there is already proof enough of God’s love present
in Jesus. H. Reisser
[wun | voudy (nymphe), bride; vvydiocg (nymphios), bridegroom;
| voudobv (nymphon), wedding hall, bride chamber.
CL nymphe is found already in Mycenaean Gk. (linear B) and is linked with Lat.
nurus. It means the bride or betrothed. The use of the term is not restricted to
the context of the wedding ceremony. It can be equally applied to a virgin, a young
woman and a young wife. Similarly nymphios means both the bridegroom, the
betrothed and the young husband. nymphé is also a term used for feminine deities
of lower rank (~ Woman).
In Hellenism, especially in the gnostic systems, the picture of bridegroom and
bride is used for the relationship of the sdtér, saviour, to men, and is taken into the
concept of hieros gamos, sacred marriage. This prepared the way for religious ero-
ticism, which even today prefers to use the allegory of engagement and marriage to
express the mystical relationship of the individual soul to the deity (— art. gamed).
oT The later NT linguistic usage is primarily determined by the earlier Jewish
customs and ideas. In the OT there are incidental references to the customs that
preceded the wedding (e.g. Gen. 24:59 ff.; Jos. 15:18f.; Jdg.14; Isa. 61:10;
Cant.). A girl was capable of marriage at twelve, a young man at fifteen. While
their personal choice probably played a part, an agreement made between their
families was essential. Because Heb. kallah covers both, the LXX uses nymphé also
for daughter-in-law (cf. Gen. 11:31; 38:11; Ruth 1:6).
In the foreground of the OT passages mentioning bride and bridegroom stands
the joy that they have in one another. This finds its finest expression in Cant. (cf.
also Ps. 45; Isa. 61:10; 62:5; Jer. 7:34; 16:9). This joy is applied metaphorically
to the relationship between Yahweh and Israel, and especially to the worship in
584
MARRIAGE
which the congregation rejoiced in Yahweh as the eternal king and founder of the
kingdom of peace in Zion (Ps. 45; Isa. 60:1 ff.). This picture corresponds to the title
of Israel as bride of Yahweh (Jer. 2:2; Isa. 49:18; 62:5).
Late Jud. continued this fig. usage. Cant. was recognized as canonical, because it
was interpreted as an allegory of the relationship of Yahweh to Israel. The expected
salvation was described as a marriage, i.e. as the final and complete union of God
with his people (SB I 517).
NT nymphé is used almost exclusively as a metaphor in the NT. In Matt. 10:35 and
Lk. 12:53 it means, conformably with Jewish usage, daughter-in-law. The
bride can also be called gyné (~ Woman), because by Jewish laws of marriage the
engaged woman was already regarded as wife. This usage is found in Matt. 1:20,
24; Rev. 19:7; 21:9 (cf. SB II 393 ff.). nymphios in the NT is bridegroom, literally
and metaphorically (Jn. 2:9; 3:29; Matt. 25:1, 6; Rev. 18:23). The hyioi tou
nymphonos, the ‘‘children of the bride chamber” (AV) were the relations and friends;
“the bridegroom’s friends’ (NEB) is preferable to “‘the wedding guests’? (RSV).
They were indispensable for the carrying through of the festive ceremonial (Matt.
9:15; Mk. 2:19 f.; Lk. 5:34; cf. Jn. 3:29; cf. SB I 500-18; F. W. Lewis, ‘“Who were
the Sons of the Bride-Chamber? (Mark ti. 18-22)”, ExpT 24, 1912-13, 285).
1. The wedding period is, as in the OT, a time of joy, especially of anticipation of
joy. These ideas in the NT are part of the eschatological imagery (— gameo). In
Matt. 9:15 par. Mk. 2:19 f. and Lk. 5:35 Jesus — rejects the need to — fast at the
present time. The time of the messiah’s presence was commonly compared to a
wedding (Isa. 62:5). The implication is that with Jesus the messiani age has
dawned. The disciples were filled with joy because Jesus was with them. The
parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1—-13) belongs also in this setting, though it 1s
also a parable of judgment, stressing the need for being awake and waiting. The
OT parallelism bride and bridegroom, symbolizing Israel and Yahweh, is here
applied to the church and Jesus (cf. SB I 501-18; 898; IV 432 f.).
2. In Jn. 3:29 f. the relationship of the Baptist to Jesus is described as that of the
bridegroom’s “‘friend’’, ho philos tounymphiou, whose part was that of the best man.
The final age first begins with Jesus, but the ‘‘friend’”’ prepared the way for him and
has no greater joy than in seeing the wedding come to pass, i.e. the dawn of recon-
ciliation and of the kingdom in Christ. On philos — love, art. philed NT 2.
3. The picture of the bridegroom and bride applies to Christ and the church in
2 Cor. 11:2. Paul describes himself as the one who presented them to Christ “as a
pure bride to her one husband” (here parthenos means virgin, i.e. bride; — Woman).
But he fears lest they be led astray from pure devotion, just as Eve was led astray
(11:3). The picture of marriage is applied to Christ and the church in Eph. 5:22-32
(— gamed).
4. In the last chs. of Rev., which describe the final consummation, we find the
picture of the church-bride waiting for her heavenly bridegroom, here called the —
Lamb of God. Joy once again stands in the foreground (19:7, 9). The church
rejoices and adorns herself so as to welcome Christ as her Lord (21:2, 9 ff.). She is
the heavenly — Jerusalem, the eschatological church, who in longing like that of a
bride looks for the final fulfilment of her existence and calls out ““Come, Lord
Jesus!” (22:17, 20). W. Giinther
585
MARRIAGE
KOoItH | Koity (koité), bed, marriage bed, intercourse.
CL In secular Gk. koité, besides its common meaning bed, connotes the marriage
bed (Aeschylus, Sophocles). It was used also of the den of an animal or the nest
of a bird as well as of a box or basket.
OT In Wis. 3:13 the word is used in the phrase hétis ouk egno koitén en paraptomati
(“who has not known intercourse in transgression’’) to describe an illicit union.
In Wis. 3:16 koité occurs in combination with sperma in a sense similar to the use
of sikbat-zera‘ (lit. discharge of seed) in Heb. where the connotation is that of
coitus (Lev. 15:18; 18:20; 19:20; Num. 5:13; cf. Lev. 15:16 f., 32; 22:4; see
further below). The Greek expression is modified by paranomou (unlawful) to
connote the concept of illicit sexual congress. In Sir. 23:18 v./. the word koité occurs
in the phrase pornos parabainon apo tés koités autou to describe ‘‘a fornicator who
strays from his marriage bed.”
In the LXX koité stands for a number of Heb. words, most frequently forms of
the verb sSakab, lie down. It represents the noun miskab on numerous occasions
with the basic meaning of bed, as the place of sleep or rest (e.g. 2 Sam. 11:13; 1 Ki.
1:47; Mic. 2:1). In Exod. 10:23 koité represents the Heb. tahat, place, in the
context of the plague of darkness on Egypt. The expression is probably used more
generally in the Heb. than the LXX allows, for the word tahat may denote a place
of sitting as well as lying. In Daniel the word miskab is represented by koité in the
LXX and, in each instance, refers to the bed as a place of rest. In Isa. 56:10 koité
is used in the sense of rest in the phrase enypniazomenoi koitén, dreaming of rest.
The word koité stands for several Heb. words that connote the home of an
animal such as the Heb. rébes (Jer. 50:6) which means sheepfold. The word also
represents the verbal form rabas in the phrase koitén poimnion, fold of flocks, in
Isa. 17:2. In Isa. 11:8 koité stands for the Heb. m®tirah which connotes the den of a
snake, and in Mic. 2:12 it represents the Heb. dober, pasture. The noun m4a‘6n, lair,
is represented by koité in Jer. 10:22. And the noun m*‘ondh, dwelling, lair, is
represented by koité in Job 37:8; 38:40. The word koité is used of the sick bed in
the LXX as in Ex. 21:18 where it represents the Heb. miskab. See also Job 33:19;
Psa. 40(41):3.
In the LXX koité also stands for the Heb. s°kabdh. The Heb. word can connote
the idea of layer or deposit as in a layer of dew (Exod. 16:13, 14) as well as the act
of lying. The word occurs in the latter sense in the phrase Sikbat-zera‘ (lit. “‘a laying
of seed’’), a technical term in the Levitical legislation used to refer to the emission
of semen. In Lev. 15:18 the expression Sikbat-zera‘ occurs as the cognate accusative
of Sakab, lie, in a section describing the means of cleansing in the case of sexual
defilement. Literally the statement says “If a man should lie with a woman “a laying
of semen,’ ”’ and thus describes the act of “laying” in the sense of completion of
coition. A similar usage of the expression occurs in Lev. 19:20; Num. 5:13. The
word §°kabah seems to have another connotation in the same expression, however,
for it is used in Lev. 15:16, 17 of emission of semen apart from coitus in which
instance the word seems to be used in the sense of ‘“‘deposit,”” hence emission. The con-
cluding statement to this legislative section (Lev. 15:32) uses the phrase sikbat-zera‘
to cover both instances of emission. The expression is used similarly in Lev. 22:4.
586
MARRIAGE
The word miskab is represented by koité in the LXX in a number of instances
where the connotation is that of bed in the sense of a place of rest but with associa-
tive sexual implications deriving from Levitical regulations relating to various forms
of sexual impurity (Lev. 15:21, 23, 24, 26). In Prov. 7:17 the word is used of the
harlot’s bed thus connoting in an implicit sense sexual intercourse. It is used
similarly in Isa. 57:7 where the prophet berates the people for setting their beds
on the mountains. The reference is to idolatry and hence is used also here in the
sense of spiritual fornication.
Frequently the word koité reflects a distinctly metaphorical use of the Heb.
miskab as a surrogate for sexual congress as in Lev. 18:22; 20:13, where the word
occurs in the plural construct state with ’issadh, woman. In Num. 31:17, 18, 35 and
Jdg. 21:11, 12 koité is used in a similar fashion in the expression yada‘ miskab
zakar, to know the bed of a male. The Heb. S*kdbet is translated by koité and also
connotes the concept of copulation. It always occurs in construction with natan,
give. This expression occurs in Lev. 18:20, 23; Num. 5:20. In each instance the
term connotes illicit sexual relationships.
The word koité also represents Heb. words connoting the marriage bed as Gen.
49:4 where miskab is used, and 1 Chron. 5:1 where the Heb. word is ydsiia‘, a poetic
word for bed.
NT In the NT koité occurs on 4 occasions. In Lk. 11:7 it is used in the sense of
bed as a place of rest. In this context, an individual in Jesus’ parable protests
that he cannot help someone who has solicited aid because he is in bed.
In Rom. 9:10 the word occurs in the expression koitén echousa, and is a euphem-
ism for coitus, and, by expansion, conception and pregnancy. In this sense it is
similar to the use of miskab as a surrogate for coition, but no clear instance exists
in Heb. where the word may connote the result of coition, i.e., conception. The
theological point of the passage is that Rebekah conceived children “‘by one man,
our forefather Isaac.’’ Yet before either of these male twins had done anything good
or bad God in his divine sovereignty had decreed that ‘“‘the elder shall serve the
younger” (Rom. 9:12; cf. Gen. 25:23). The argument forms an important part of
Paul’s case demonstrating to Jewish readers the consistency of divine sovereignty
in the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God.
The word koité is used in the plur. in Rom. 13:13 in the sense of illicit sexual
union. In this context the word is accompanied by such terms as revelling (kémos),
—> drunkenness (methé), and licentiousness (aselgeia), all of which are also in the
plur. Believers are warned to avoid them, together with quarreling (eris) and jea-
lousy (zé/os), “but to put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the
flesh to gratify its desires” (Rom. 13:14).
In Heb. 13:4 the word occurs in the sense of “marriage bed’ as it does in the
OT. In this context the writer affirms that the marriage relationship is an honourable
one, and at the same time it is to be kept honourable. T. McComiskey
bmépakpoc (hyperakmos), past the peak, overripe, begin
VTE PAK HOG to fade; or, overwhelmingly strong, overpassionate.
CL & OT The word is formed from the prep. hyper, for, beyond, and the noun
akmé, peak, which is used in the sense of the peak or high point in human
587
MARRIAGE
development in Plato, Rep. 5 p. 640e and Philo, Leg. All. 1, 10. Diod.S. 32, 11, 1
speaks of the akmé tés hélikias of a woman (on hélikia — Age, Stature) and also
uses it of a virgin (Frag. 34, 35, 2, 39). Diog.L. 5, 65 tells of the pity felt for a father
of a virgin who because of the smallness of her dowry goes beyond the prime of her
age (ektrechousa ton akmaion tés hélikias kairon). J. M. Ford links the word with the
Mishnaic Heb. bégeret, lit. ““wrinkled”’, but in this kind of context ‘“‘past her girl-
hood”’ or “‘at the age when levirate marriage is incumbent on her” (““The Rabbinic
Background of St. Paul’s Use of hyperakmos’’, Journal of Jewish Studies 18, 1966,
89 ff.). On the other hand, cognate words have been found in relation to human
desires: akmaia epithymia (Pseudo-Clementines, Homily p. 8, 17 Lag.; akmazo,
Syntipas p. 10, 14).
NT The word occurs only at 1 Cor. 7:36. Two opposing lines of interpretation
have been put forward. On the one hand, the subject of the verse has tradi-
tionally been taken to refer to the father of a virgin daughter. In this case, the
interpretation would be: “If anyone [i.e. any father] thinks that he is not behaving
properly to his virgin [parthenon; sc. daughter], and if she be beyond age [ean é
hyperakmos], and it has to be, let him do as he wishes; he does not sin — let them
marry [gameitosan].”’ This is further supported by the use of gamizo twice in v. 38
which normally means to give in marriage. Thus: ‘“‘So that he who gives in marriage
[ho gamizon] his virgin does well; and he who does not give in marriage [ho mé
gamizon| does better.” On parthenos in these verses — Woman, art. parthenos.
On the other hand, there is the interpretation which takes the subject of these
verse to be the man who has some kind of liaison with the parthenos. This is not
explicitly defined. It may imply a betrothal where marriage has been put off on
the grounds of the spiritual considerations that Paul is urging in this passage. Some
interpreters take this to refer to a spiritual marriage which has not been consum-
mated physically. But evidence for such marriages is considerably later than the
NT period, and the use of gamizo in v. 38 would hardly seem appropriate, if this
were the case. In this case the interpretation of the verse would be: “If anyone
thinks that he is not behaving properly to his virgin, and he be overpassionate
[hyperakmos], and it has to be, let him do as he wishes, he does not sin — let them
marry. But he who is firmly established in his heart, having no necessity, has power
over his own will, and has judged this in his heart to keep her as his virgin, he will
do well. So that he who marries his own virgin does well, and he who does not
marry does better’ (vv. 36 ff.). This interpretation involves no change of subject
in v. 36, and offers a thoroughly realistic assessment of the situation. Moreover, there
are exceptions to the general rule that gamizO means to give in marriage (cf.
Moulton-Milligan, 121).
In view of this last point, it would also be possible to take the subject of this
verse to be the man and still refer hyperakmos to the virgin, i.e. the man should go
ahead and marry her on the grounds of her age.
In the last analysis, one cannot rule out any of these interpretations as
impossible. However, the general tenor of Paul’s recommendations remains clear.
It is not a sin to marry; out of personal humanitarian considerations it may be
right to do so. On the other hand, times make celibacy preferable. C. Brown
—> Child, — Discipline, — Divorce, — Father, — Son, — Woman
588
MARRIAGE
(a). J. J. von Allmen, Pauline Teaching on Marriage, Studies in Christian Faith and Practice 6,
1963; O. J. Baab, ‘“‘Marriage’’, DB III 278-87; K. Barth, CD III, 4, 116-240; S. R. Brav, Marriage
and the Jewish Tradition, 1951; J. B. Bauer, ‘“‘Marriage’’, EBT II 551-56; R. Batey, ‘““The mia sarx
Union of Christ and the Church’’, NTS 13, 1966-67, 270-81; and New Testament Nuptial Imagery,
1971; E. Brunner, The Divine Imperative, 1937, 340-83; M. Burrows, The Basis of Israelite Mar-
riage, 1938; D. R. Catchpole, The Synoptic Divorce Material as a Traditio-Historical Problem, 1976;
J. D. M. Derrett, ““The Woman Taken in Adultery” and ‘“The Teaching of Jesus on Marriage
and Divorce’’, in Law in the New Testament, 1970, 156-88 and 363-88; R. J. Ehrlich, ““The
Indissolubility of Marriage as a Theological Problem’, SJT 23, 1970, 291-311; J. H. Elliott,
‘“‘Paul’s Teaching on Marriage in I Corinthians: Some Problems Reconsidered’, NTS 19
1972-73, 219-25; L. M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud, 1942; J. M. Ford,
‘““Levirate Marriage in St Paul’, NTS 10, 1963-64, 361-65; “‘St Paul, the philogamist (1 Cor.
vii in Early Patristic Exegesis)’, NTS 11, 1964-65, 326-48; and ‘““The Rabbinic Background
of St Paul’s Use of hyperakmos’’, Journal of Jewish Studies, 18, 1966, 89 ff.; W. J. Harrington,
The Bible on Matrimony, 1963; F. Hauck, moicheué etc., TDNT IV 729-35; A. Isaksson, Marriage
and Ministry in the New Temple: A Study with Special Reference to Mt. 19,3-12 and I Cor. 11,3-16,
1965; J. Jeremias, nymphé, nymphios, TDNT IV 1099-1106; P. K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female,
1975; L. K6hler, Hebrew Man, 1956; K. Kahana, The Theory of Marriage in Jewish Law, 1966;
D. A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Reference
to the Book of Ruth, 1974; W. Lillie, Studies in New Testament Ethics 1961, 118-28; A. Mahoney,
‘“A New Look at the Divorce Clauses in Mt. 5, 32 and 19, 9”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30,
1968, 29-38; M. Mielziner, The Jewish Law: Marriage and Divorce, 1901; R. C. Mortimer,
chairman, Putting Assunder: A Divorce Law for Contemporary Society. The Report of a Group
Appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in January 1964, 1966; I. A. Muirhead, ‘“The Bride
of Christ”, SJT 5, 1952, 175-87; E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, 1944; J. Pedersen,
Israel: Its Life and Culture, I-II 1926, 60-81; H. Riesenfeld, ‘“The Pericope de adultera in the
Early Christian Tradition’, The Gospel Tradition, 1970, 95-110; H. Root, chairman, Marriage,
Divorce and the Church, The Report of a Commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury
to prepare a staement on the Christian Doctrine of Marriage, 1971; H. H. Rowley, ‘“The Marriage
of Ruth’, HTR 40, 1947. 77-99 (reprinted in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the
Old Testament, 1965, 169-94); J. P. Sampley, “And the Two Shall Become One Flesh’: A
Study of Traditions in Ephesians 5:21-33, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
Series 16, 1971; E. Schillebeeckx, Marriage: Secular Reality and Saving Mystery, I Marriage
in the Old Testament and the New Testament, II Marriage in the History of Church, 1965; R.
Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 1965, 132-43, 144-57; A. van Selms,
Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature, 1954; J. van Seters, ““The Problem of Child-
lessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel’’, JBL 87, 1968, 401-8; E. Stauffer,
gamed, gamos, TDNT I 648-57; H. Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex, 1964; M. Thurian, Marriage and
Celibacy, 1959; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 1961, 19-40; G. N. Vollebregt,
The Bible on Marriage, 1965; E. Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, I-III, 1922°; J. W. C.
Wand, chairman, The Church and the Law of Nullity of Marriage. The Report of a Commission
appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 1949 at the request of the Convocations,
1955; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 166-76; R. Yaron, ‘““The Restoration
of Marriage’’, Journal of Jewish Studies 17, 1966, 1-11.
(b). H. Baltensweiler, Die Ehe im Neuen Testament. Exegetische Untersuchungen liber Ehe,
Ehelosigkeit und Ehescheidung, AThANT 32, 1967; A. Bardtke and H. Thimme, “‘Ehe”’, EKL I
994 ff.; U. Becker, Jesus und die Ehebrecherin, BZNW 28, 1963; J. Blinzler, ‘““Die Strafe fir
Ehebruch i in Bibel und Halacha’, NTS 4, 1957-58, 32-47; J. Cambier, ‘““Le grand mysteére con-
cernant le Christ et son Eglise, Eph. 5, 22-13”, Biblica 47, 1966, 43-90; H. Crouzel, ‘‘Séparation
ou remariage selon les Péres anciens”’, Gregorianum 47, 1966, 472-94; G. Delling, ““Ehe”’, RAC IV
666 ff.; J. Gnilka, “‘ ‘Brautigam’, spitjiidisches Messiaspradikat ”, Trierer Theologische Zeit-
schrift, 1960, 298 ff.; R. Goeden, Zur Stellung von Mann und Frau, Ehe und Sexualitat im Hinblick
auf Bibel und alte Kirche, Dissertation Gottingen, 1969; H. Greeven, ‘“‘Zu den Aussagen des
Neuen Testaments tiber die Ehe’’, Zeitschrift fiir evangelische Ethik 1, 1957, 109 ff.; and ‘“‘Ehe nach
dem Neuen Testament”, N7S 15, 1968-69, 365-88; U. Holzmeister, ‘“‘Die Streitfrage tiber die
Ehescheidungstexte bei Mt. 5, 32 und 19, 9”, Biblica 26, 1945, 133-46; F. Horst and H. Greeven,
*“Ehe”’, RGG? II 361 ff.; H. Hiibner, ‘‘Zolibat in Qumran ?”, NTS 17, 1970-71, 153-67; J. Jeremias,
589
MARRIAGE/ MELCHIZEDEK
“Die missionarische Aufgabe in der Mischehe’’, in W. Eltester, ed., Neutestamentliche Studien fiir
Rudolf Bultmann, BZNW 21, 1954, 255-60; W. G. Kimmel, “Verlobung und Heirat bei Paulus
(1 Kor. 7, 36-38)”, BZNW 21, 1954, 275-95 (reprinted in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte. Gesam-
melte Aufsdtze 1933-1964, 1965, 310-27; J. Leipoldt, Die Frau in der antiken Welt und im Urchrist-
entum, 1955*; E. Linnemann, “‘Die Hochzeit zu Kana und Dionysos”’, NTS 20, 1973-74, 408-18;
E. Lévestam, “Ehe”’, BHHW 1 369 f.; R. Patai, L’> Amour et le Couple aux Temps Bibliques, 1967;
W. Palutz, ‘““Monogamie und Polygamie im Alten Testament’, ZA W 75, 1963, 3-27; H. Preisker,
Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1927; B. Reicke, ““Neuzeitliche und neu-
testamentliche Auffassung von Liebe und Ehe’’, NovT 1, 1956, 21-34; K. H. Rengstorf, Mann
und Frau im Urchristentum, 1954; K. H. Schelkle, ““Ehe und Ehelosigkeit im Neuen Testament’’,
Wissenschaft und Weisheit 29, 1966, 1-15; H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 1930.
Melchizedek, Salem
Wel vecben Med yaedéx (Melchisedek), Melchizedek, ancient Canaan-
ite king of Salem (— Salém).
OT Melchizedek (Heb. malki-sedeq, “king of righteousness’’, ‘“‘my king is righ-
teous’’) is a proper name of Canaanite origin closely akin to Adonizedek (Jos.
10:1). Melchizedek emerges without warning in the primitive history (Gen. 14:18-
20) following Abram’s rout of the forces of Chedorlaomer. Melchizedek is intro-
duced as “‘king of Salem” (— Salém), presumably monarch of Jerusalem, which
is situated not far from the Valley of Shaveh, or the King’s Valley (cf. 2 Sam. 18:18).
As an expression of Near Eastern hospitality, Melchizedek supplies bread and wine
for the physical refreshment of Abram and his victorious warriors. The Genesis
narrative concludes with the remarkable observation that the Canaanite blessed
Abram and received a tenth of the spoils of battle from him, Abram thereby
acknowledging the prominence of Melchizedek’s priesthood.
The only other mention of Melchizedek in the OT occurs in Ps. 110:4, where the
Lord ( Yahweh) addresses David’s Lord ('a@d6n) with the acclamation: “You are a
priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”’ Ps. 110:4 thus intimates that the
priest-king of messianic expectation would be installed in a new non-Aaronic
sacerdotal order patterned after that of Melchizedek of old. In both the pre-
Christian and early Christian eras the Psalm-text was interpreted by the Jews in a
messianic sense. Strack-Billerbeck argues that the disappearance of the messianic
interpretation of the Psalm between c. A.D. 50 and 250 was due to heightened ten-
sions between the expanding church and the Synagogue (SB IV 452 f.). By sub-
stituting a non-messianic interpretation for Ps. 110, the Rabbinate sought to under-
mine the church’s appeal to this text in its teaching and preaching.
Philo clothes the OT figure of Melchizedek in the garb of Platonic philosophy.
Here Melchizedek is presented as an incarnation of the Logos (— word), the ideal
form (idea) of the creation, which spans the chasm between God and nature. The
“righteous king” and the “king of peace” (Leg.All. 3, 79) learned the traditions
of his priesthood from none save himself (De Congr. 99). Philo’s extreme al-
legorization of Gen. 14:18-20 reduces the historical features of the OT text to
timeless philosophical principles. Melchizedek is royal Mind (nous) who, unlike
despotic kings, decrees pleasing laws and who “‘offers to the soul food of joy and
gladness” (Leg. All. 3, 81). He is priestly Reason (Jogos) who with the gift of wine
releases the soul from earthly contemplation and intoxicates it with esoteric
heavenly virtues. Thus through his offering of bread and wine Melchizedek mediates
590
MELCHIZEDEK
the soul’s direct access to God. Abraham’s presentation of the tithe is similarly
spiritualized: “‘he gave him a tenth of all [Gen. 14:20]; from the things of sense
[aisthésis], right use of sense; from the things of speech [/ogos], good speaking;
from the things of thought [nous], good thinking”’ (Congr. 99).
In pre-Christian Samaritan tradition Melchizedek figured prominently in the
establishment of the sanctuary of the sect, apparently as its first priest. Not only is
Salem (— Salém) identified with Shechem, but Mt. Gerizim (Gk. oros hypsistou,
“mountain of the highest God’’) is named after Melchizedek, the “‘priest of God
most high.”
Josephus accepts the historicity of the Gen. 14:18—20 pericope and characterizes
Melchizedek as “‘a potent man among the Canaanites... the first priest of God”’
(War 6, 10, 1).
Melchizedek occupies a prominent place in the 11Q Melchizedek Qumran
scroll, which quotes Ps. 82:1, 2 and transfers its meaning to Melchizedek: “‘as it is
written concerning him in the hymns of David who says: ‘the heavenly one
[’elohim, sing.] standeth in the congregation of God; among the heavenly ones
[elohim, plur.] he judgeth.’”’ Melchizedek is thus depicted in the scroll as a para-
mount heavenly angel standing in the tribunal of God, who preserves the faithful
and executes eschatological judgment upon the perverse spirits.
Rabbinic Judaism traditionally identified Melchizedek with Shem, the most
pious of Noah’s sons. According to R. Ishmael, the priesthood was taken from
Melchizedek and transferred to Abraham because the Salemite addressed the pat-
riarch before God (Ned. 32b; Sanh. 108b). Elsewhere in late Jewish literature Mel-
chizedek was variously interpreted as an incarnate angel who performed priestly
functions, as the archangel Michael, or as an idealized high priest of the messianic
age (kohén-sedeq) who emerges alongside the messiah.
NT Only the author of Hebrews in the NT took interest in the enigmatic figure
of Melchizedek. The idea of the Melchizedekian priesthood of Christ is intro-
duced in Heb. 5:6, 10, but full explication of the concept is interrupted by a parae-
netic digression (5:11-6:19) necessitated by the dullness and immaturity of the
readers. Ch. 7 is devoted to a detailed development of the novel concept of priest-
hood “‘after the order of Melchizedek”’ (7:1-10), and its application to the high
priest of the new covenant (7:11—28).
In 7:1, 2a the writer presents a selective recitation of Gen. 14:18—20 (conspi-
cuously omitting reference to the bread and wine, which Roman Catholic theology
regards as a type of the Eucharist), followed in 7:2b, 3 by a skilful reinterpretation
of the Genesis text in the light of Ps. 110:4. Via a subtle typological exegesis the
writer establishes Melchizedek as a fitting model of the radical non-legal priest-
hood embodied by Jesus (7:1-—3). (a) 7:1 — The Salemite priest-king as a harbinger
of the one who would unite in his person the dual honours of royalty and
priesthood. (b) 7:2b — Etymological exegesis of Melchizedek’s name (“king of
righteousness’’) and title (‘king of peace’’) points to the messiah whose person and
ministry is characterized by righteousness (Isa. 32:1; Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:15 f.; Mal. 4:
2; 1 Cor. 1:30) and peace (1 Chron. 22:9; Zech. 9:10; Eph. 2:14 f.). “Both graces
perfectly meet in Christ” (B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1892, 172). (c)
7:3a — Melchizedek exercised a priesthood entirely independent of priestly pedigree.
59]
MELCHIZEDEK
‘“‘The parents, ancestors, children, and posterity of Melchizedec are not descended
from Levi, as it had to be in the case of the Levites (ver. 6), and they are not even men-
tioned by Moses” (J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, IV, 1857, 403).
Herewith the priesthood of Melchizedek violated the conditions of Aaronic order,
which stipulated paternal descent from Aaron (Exod. 28:1; Num. 3:10; 18:1) and
maternal descent from a pure Israelite (Lev. 21:7, 13 f.; Ezek. 44:22). Melchizedek
thus adumbrates the messianic high priest who was descended from the non-sacer-
dotal tribe of Judah. (d) 7:3b — The OT figure of Melchizedek was symbolically
what Christ is in reality: a ministrant who suddenly emerged from the distant reaches
of eternity and who later vanished into its depths equally as mysteriously. The notion
of eternity, deduced from absence of recorded birth and decease, is understood in
the light of the Jewish axiom: “quod non in Thora non in mundo [What is not in
the Torah is not in the world]” (SB III 694). (e) 7:3c — Melchizedek exercises a
priesthood of uninterrupted duration, since he neither succeeded another nor was
he himself succeeded in office.
Having sketched Melchizedek’s similarity to Christ, the writer argues his dis-
similarity to» Abraham (and hence to the—Levites), thereby demonstrating
Christ’s superiority to the antiquated legal order (7: 4-10): (a) 7:5, 6a — Melchizedek
received the tithes from Abraham; (b) 7:6b, 7 —- The Gentile bestowed the blessing
upon the patriarch; and (c) 7:8 — Melchizedek “‘lives on” in Scripture unlike the
Levitical priests who succumbed to death.
The remainder of the chapter (7:11—28) delineates the merits of Christ as Mel-
chizedekian priest and high priest. Expounding the implications of the Davidic
Psalm-text, the writer demonstrates that the high priest of the new covenant is
vastly superior to the ministrants of the old annulled order. As high priest for ever
“after the order of Melchizedek’’, Christ’s priesthood is indissoluble (7:1),
inviolable (7:24), efficacious (7:25) and perfect (7:28). The one foreshadowed in
the distant past by the fleeting figure of Melchizedek is the great high priest par
excellence. B. A. Demarest
| Laan | Ladnu (Salém), Salem, seat of Melchizedek’s rule.
oT 1. Salem, Greek form of an ancient Palestinian city, is associated by most
authorities from earliest times with Jerusalem. A less convincing proposal
identifies Salem with Salim (Gk. Saleim), a town eight miles south of Scythopolis
in the region where John baptized (Jn. 3:23). Philo, working an etymological
exegesis similar to the writer of Hebrews, hails the monarch of Salem as “‘king of
peace” (Leg.All. 3, 79).
2. Proper noun. As a place name salém occurs only twice in the OT: (a) in Gen.
14:18; and (b) in Ps. 76:3 where it is most likely a poetic abbreviation of —
Jerusalem (Heb. -y*risalayim, “‘possession of peace” or “foundation of peace’’).
In the mind of the Psalmist Salem, the dwelling place of God, is pre-eminently a
place of peace. Josephus reflects the Jewish tradition that the ancient Canaanite
settlement known as Salem was later renamed Jerusalem by the priest-king Melchi-
zedek.
592
MELCHIZEDEK/MERCY
3. Adjectival form. Salém, a common OT cognate of sal6m (‘“‘wholeness”’, “‘peace’’)
bears the meaning peaceful in the MT in the sense of a—> covenant of peace
between men (Gen. 34:21). More frequently, it signifies perfect, blameless (i.e. at
peace with) as a description of man’s spiritual relation to God (1 Ki. 8:61; 11:4;
15:3; 2 Chron. 16:9).
NT In the NT Salém occurs only in the Epistle to Hebrews (7:1, 2). After identi-
fying Melchizedek as “‘king of Salem” on the strength of Gen. 14:18 the writer,
in similar manner to Philo, hastens to unfold the deeper spiritual meaning implicit
in Melchizedek’s royal title. To the eyes of faith the “king of Salem” is “king of
peace’’ (—> Peace, art. eiréné). Hebrews reflects little interest in the geographical
location of Salem. The paramount interest is to deduce from the etymology of
Salem a principal characteristic (i.e. peace) of the reign of the end-time priest-king.
—» Abraham, — Jerusalem, —> Priest, —> Sacrifice B. A. Demarest
(a). B. A. Barrois, ““Salem’’, 7DBIV 1966; B. Demarest, A History of the Interpretation of Hebrews
7, from the Reformation to the Present, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 19, 1976);
J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11”, JBL 86, 1967, 25-41
(reprinted in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, 1971, 245-67); and “‘ ‘Now
this Melchizedek . . .” (Heb. 7:1)”, op. cit., 221-44; J. G. Gammie, “‘Loci of the Melchizedek
Tradition of Genesis 14:18-20”, JBL 90, 1971, 385-96; F. L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition:
A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 30, 1976; O. Michel, Melchisedek, TDNT IV
568-71; J. J. Petuchowski, ‘““The Controversial Figure of Melchizedek’’, Hebrew Union College
Annual 28, 1957, 127-36; H. H. Rowley, “‘Melchizedek and Zadok’’, in W. Baumgartner ed.,
Festschrift fur A. Bartholet, 1950, 461 ff.; R. Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews,
1970; A. S. van der Woude and M. de Jonge, “‘11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament”’,
NTS 12, 1965-66, 310-26; Y. Yadin, ‘“The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews”’,
Scripta Hierosolymitana 4, 1958, 36-55.
(b). G. Bardy, ‘‘Melchisédech dans la tradition patristique’’, RB 35, 1926, 496-509, and 36, 1927,
24-45; J. Calvin, ‘““Trois sermons sur l’histoire de Melchisédec’’, Corpus Reformatorum, LI, 641-82;
M. Friedlander, ‘‘Melchisédec et l’Epitre aux Hébreux’’, Revue des Etudes Juives 5, 1882, 188 ff.;
F. J. Jerome, Das geschichtliche Melchisedek-Bild und seine Bedeutung im Hebrdaerbrief, 1920;
H. E. del Medico, ‘‘Melchisedek”’, ZAW 69, 1957, 160-70; G. Schille, ““Erwagungen zur Hohe-
priesterlehre des Hebrderbriefs”, ZNW 46, 1955, 81-109; C. Spica, ‘““L’Origine Johannique de la
Conception du Christ-Prétre, dans |’Epitre aux Hébreux’’, Festschrift M. Goguel, 1950, 258-69;
and L’Epitre aux Hébreux, I-II, 1952-53; H. Stork, Die Sogenannten Melchisedekianer, Forsch-
ungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons 8/2, 1928; G. Wuttke, Melchisedech der
Priesterkénig von Salem. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Exegese, BZNW 5, 1927.
Mercy, Compassion
This article brings together three different Gk. words, eleos, oiktirmos and splanchna.
In their original use e/eos refers to the feeling of pity, oiktirmos, and especially its
root oiktos, to the exclamation of pity at the sight of another’s ill-fortune, and
splanchna to the seat of the emotions, the inward parts or what today would be
called the heart. The corresponding verbs in the active express these feelings shown
in the sense of to help, feel pity, show mercy; where they are used in the passive,
they express the experience of these emotions.
593
MERCY
Edeoc (eleos), compassion, mercy, pity; éAeém (eleed),
| feel compassion, show mercy or pity; éAenpcv (eleémon),
merciful, compassionate; éAeeivdc (eleeinos), pitiful; éAenpoavvy (eleémosyné),
charity, alms; avédeoc (aneleos), without pity; avedewuwvy (aneleémén), merciless.
EEOC
CL eleos (masc. but normally neut. in the LXX and the NT) is found from Homer
onwards. It is “the emotion roused by contact with an affliction which comes
undeservedly on someone else” (R. Bultmann, TDNT II 477), viz. compassion,
pity, mercy. These feelings are the reverse of envy at another’s good fortune. There
is also an element of fear that one might have to suffer in the same way. Aristotle
in his Poetics stated that tragedy aroused pity and terror and these caused katharsis,
purging. From Plutarch onwards we find the expressions eleon echo, to find mercy,
and kat’ eleon, out of compassion. eleos was used as a technical term for the end
of the speech for the defence, in which the accused tried to awaken the compassion
of the judges. In Plato’s Apology Socrates refused to conform to the pattern (23 f.,
34b—35d).
aneleos, an attributive compound showing mutation (Funk § 120:2), meaning
unmerciful, without compassion, is found only in the NT, and replaces the Homeric
nélees, and Att. anéleés (found in the LXX but not the NT). aneleémon has the
same adjectival meaning; it is found from Antiphon (480-411 B.c.) onwards as an
adv. It is the privative form of eleémon (Homer onwards), compassionate, merciful.
eleeinos (Homer onwards, but not in the LXX) is mainly used of a person’s passive
condition as causing compassion, hence pitiable, distressing.
The vb. eleeé (Homer onwards) means to have compassion, be sorry for, show
compassion, be merciful. The Koine form e/eao is found twice in the LXX, 3 times
in the NT. The cry eleéson, have mercy, was addressed to the gods. With or without
logois (with words) the vb. also means deplore, sympathize with. In the pass. it
means to find mercy (in the NT also eleos lambano). The derived noun eleémosyné
(Callimachus of Alexandria, c. 250 B.c., onwards) was originally the same as eleos
but was then applied to the act of kindness following compassion. It then obtained
the specialized meaning of a contribution for or gift to the poor (cf. our alms); it
finds its earliest use in the LXX (Dan. 4:27) and in profane writings in Diog.
Laert. (3rd cent. A.D.).
OT 1. eleos and its derivatives are found nearly 400 times in the LXX. It normally
represents hesed; only 6 times rah*mim. The vb. normally represents hadnan
(— Grace), but also raham; eleémosyné renders s°daqah.
2. These Heb. concepts betray a completely different background of thought
from the predominantly psychological one in Gk. They are based on legal concepts.
Hence, we have to interpret the LXX translation from the standpoint of the Heb.
original, and not the other way round. Philo is the first Jewish writer in whom a
penetration of the Gk. concepts is observable in our word-group.
(a) hesed means proper covenant behaviour, the solidarity which the partners
in the covenant owe one another (— Covenant). The covenant may be between
equals, or it may be made by one who is stronger than his partner in it. In either
case it may result in one giving help to the other in his need. So the connotations of
eleos meaning hesed may stretch from loyalty to a covenant to kindliness, mercy,
pity. This is especially the case when it is linked with oiktirmos meaning rah*mim
594
MERCY
(e.g. Isa. 63:7b; Hos. 2:21[MT 2:19]; Zech. 7:9; Pss. 25:6[LXX 24:6]; 40:11
[MT 40:12; LXX 39:12]; SI:I[MT 51:3; LXX 50:3]; 69:16[MT 69:17; LXX
68:17]). Because of Yahweh’s superiority as the partner in the covenant who re-
mains faithful, his e/eos was understood for the most part as a gracious gift. He
promised it at the making of the covenant, and he constantly renewed it. Hence
Israel might request e/eos from him including the mercy of forgiveness, when it
had broken the covenant (e.g. Exod. 34:9; Num. 14:19; Jer. 3:12). When God acts
like this and also when man acts similarly the stress is not on the basic attitude in
eleos but on its manifestation in acts.
(b) s*dagah is normally rendered by dikaiosyné (—> Righteousness). But “‘since the
judgment in which God’s s*daqd@h is active will be in favour of His people... we can
understand the rendering eleémosyné” (R. Bultmann, TDNT II 486; cf. e.g. Isa.
1:27). Just as Yahweh enforces his covenant law mercifully, so eleémosyné may
also be used for human kindness, charity and even alms (though this last is found
only in late Jud.) when these conform to the pattern of this law.
3. The linguistic usage of late Palestinian Judaism is that of the OT. hesed is
very common in the Qumran texts: the Essene community used it to praise the
loyalty of God to the covenant which they had experienced in the establishment of
the new, eschatological covenant. See 1QS 1:8, 22; 2:1, 4, 24; 4:4 f.; 5:4, 25; 8:2;
10:4, 16, 26; 11:12 f.; 1QM 12:3; 14:4, 8 f.; 18:11; 1QH 1:32; 2:23, 25; 4:37;
5:22; 6:9; 7:18, 20, 27, 35; 9:7, 10, 14; 10:14, 16; 11:5, 17 f., 28, 30 f.; 12:14, 21;
13:5; 16:9, 12, 16; CD 13:18; 19:1; 20:21.
NT |. eleos and its derivatives are found 78 times in the NT, mainly in the Pauline
writings (26 times) and Luke-Acts (20 times with preference for eleos itself).
It is found 15 times in Matt. Only in Jn., Phil., 1-2 Thess. is the group completely
absent.
_ 2. Synoptic Gospels. In the Synoptics e/eed is found mainly in the narratives.
Exceptions are Matt. 5:7; 18:33; Lk. 10:37; 16:24. The opposite is true of e/eos,
which, with the exception of Lk. 1:58, is used only in reports of speech.
(a) The vb. marks that breaking in of the divine mercy into the reality of human
misery which took place in the person of Jesus of Nazareth with his work of freeing
and healing which demonstrated his authority. Jesus answered the cry for help
“Have mercy on me” (Mk. 10:47, 48 par. Matt. 9:27; 15:22; 17:15; Lk. 17:13)
from the sick or the relatives of the demon-possessed (Matt. 15:22; 17:15) by
healing. On one occasion (Mk. 5:19) he commanded a man from whom he had
driven out demons to tell those at home how the Lord (here in the OT sense of
‘““God’’) had had mercy on him. Normally on these occasions Jesus was addressed
by the messianic title — “Son of David” (— Son); once we find epistata (Lk.
17:13), Master (lit. ‘“‘foreman’’). (epistata also occurs in Lk. 5:5; 8:24, 45; 9:33,
49; see Arndt, 300.) Matt. adds the post-resurrection title of kyrios (— Lord), or
uses it to replace the presumably historical address of ““Teacher’”’ (didaskale, cf.
Matt. 17:15 with Mk. 9:17, Lk. 9:38). This makes the cry, “Lord, have mercy’’, a
confession of faith in the divine authority of Jesus.
(b) Mercy from man to man is expressed by eleed or eleémon only twice in the
teaching in Matt. (5:7; 18:33), and once in the material peculiar to Lk. (16:24),
but in each case the motivation is clearly God’s mercy. In Matt. 5:7 the merciful
595
MERCY
(eleémon) are promised God’s mercy — the vb. is pass. to avoid using the name of
God. In the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-35) the demand for
mercy (v. 33) is based on the limitless compassion of his lord (vv. 35, 27; >
splanchna). The rich man, who had been merciless during his life, calls in his
suffering on — Abraham, exalted to fellowship with God, with the same words for
mercy as are otherwise used only in calling on God (Lk. 16:24).
(c) In the rest of the teaching in Matt. and Lk. we find only eleos. A reference,
often direct, to the OT is noticeable. In his controversies with the — Pharisees
Jesus bore witness to the sovereign mercy of God, which seeks a response not in
ritual detail but in solidarity through action with the lowly (— Poor) and hungry
(— Hunger) (Matt. 9:13; 12:7; cf. 1 Sam. 15:22; Hos. 6:6). In his “‘woes”’ he also
levelled against them the charge that in their interpretation of the — law they had
shifted the main stress from “‘justice and mercy and faithfulness” to a more casuistic
formalism (Matt. 23:23; cf. also Lk. 10:37 where the showing of mercy is de-
manded as the moral of the parable of the good — Samaritan). In the prologue to
his Gospel Lk. announced its main theme in the two great psalms of praise (Lk.
1:46-55, 68-79); that the covenant loyalty of God, promised in the OT and shown
in action in the history of Israel, would reach its climax in the gracious self-
humiliation of God to the humble (— Poor) in the event of Christ (1:50, 54, 72, 78);
v. 78 speaks of the — splanchna eleous, the ‘merciful heart’, of our God. Note the
many OT quotations in these psalms (cf. Lk. 1:46 with 1 Sam. 2:1-10; Lk. 1:48
with Pss. 113:5 ff.; 11:4; Lk. 1:50 with Ps. 103:13, 17; Lk. 1:51 with 2 Sam. 22:28;
Lk. 1:52 with Ps. 147:6; Job 12:19; 5:11; 1 Sam. 2:7; Ezek. 21:31; Lk. 1:53 with
Pss. 34:11; 107:9; 2 Sam. 2:5; Lk. 1:54 with Isa. 41:8; Ps. 98:3; Lk. 1:55 with
Mic. 7:20; Gen. 17:17; 18:18; 22:17; Lk. 1:68 with Pss. 41:14; 72:18; 89:53;
106:48; Lk. 1:69 with 1 Sam. 2:10; Pss. 18:3; 132:17; Lk. 1:71 with Ps.
106:10; Lk. 1:72 with Pss. 105:8; 106:45; Lev. 26:42; Gen. 17:7; 22:16; Mic.
7:20; Lk. 1:74 with Ps. 97:10; Lk. 1:76 with Mal. 3:1; 4:5; Lk. 1:77 with Jer.
31:34; Num. 24:17; Isa. 60:1 f.; Lk. 1:79 with Isa 9:1 f.; 42:7). The thought of
these two psalms in LK. is saturated with OT ideas of judgment and mercy. (On the
first two chapters of Lk. see further R. Laurentin, Structure et Théologie de Luc I-I,
1964.)
3. eleémosyné, as alms charity. Matt. reports only Jesus’ criticism of the attempt
to obtain public praise and acknowledgment in the giving of alms (— Poor NT)
(Matt. 6:1-4), but Lk. has the definite teaching: alms instead of ritual purity
(Lk. 11:41, in an argument with the Pharisees), and lays down as a rule for the
disciples and the church the giving away of one’s possessions to the poor (LK.
12:33). In Acts Tabitha (9:36) and Cornelius (10:2) are singled out for their
charity and as recipients of singular blessing. The former was perhaps a Hellenistic
Jewess (her name is explained as Dorcas or Gazelle) and was a resident of Joppa.
She fell sick and died (Acts 9:37), but was restored through Peter. Cornelius was a
centurion of the Italian Cohort at Caesarea and was “‘a devout man who feared God
eusebés kai phoboumenos ton theon’’ (on the significance of these terms —> Conver-
sion). God honoured him by receiving his prayers and accepting his alms (10:4, 31),
and bestowing on him the Holy Spirit (10:44 ff.). Whereupon he was the first
Gentile to be received into the church (10:47 f.). This also took place at Joppa.
In his defence before Felix in Acts Paul mentioned the bringing of alms for his
596
MERCY
people as the purpose of his last journey to Jerusalem (24:17). By using the term
“doing alms” (eleémosynas poied, Heb. ‘asah s*daqah), a Semitic expression, he
stressed his active responsibility. In Acts 3:1-8 Peter by his healing of the lame
man symbolically ended the time of begging and imperfect mercy by the full
mercy brought in the name of Jesus Christ (3:6).
4. Paul. Paul wished to be regarded as one who had received mercy (éleéthén)
that he might become an —- apostle (1 Tim. 1:13, 16), and who by the Lord’s
mercy (éleémenos) had been made trustworthy (1 Cor. 7:25). In view of the wide-
scale rejection of the gospel by — Israel, he strove in Rom. to make clear that God’s
free mercy did not contradict his covenant loyalty (Rom. 9:15, 16, 18; v. 1S isa
quotation of Exod. 33:19). God’s plan of salvation, now for the Gentiles (Rom.
9:23 f.; 11:30; 15:9), then for the Jews (11:31), and so both for Jews and Gentiles
(Rom. 11:32) is based on his mercy. The salvation of those made alive for faith and
renewal in the Holy Spirit is based on this mercy, not on good works (Eph. 2:4—9;
Tit. 3:5). Hence they are admonished to pass on the mercy they have experienced
(2 Cor. 4:1; Rom. 12:1, oktirmos, plur.) cheerfully (Rom. 12:8), so that mercy
becomes one of the signs by which a disciple can be known; cf. “full of mercy
[mesté eleous|’’ in the list of virtues in Jas. 3:17, while “unmerciful [aneleémonas]”
(RV, RSV “ruthless”; NEB “without pity’’) is the lowest rung in the downward
ladder of Rom. 1:29-32 and so the completest negation of the knowledge of God.
Paul and other NT writers (2 Jn. 3; Jude 2), in their confidence in God’s gracious
giving can greet their readers at the beginning (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4,
some MSS) or end (Gal. 6:16) of their letters with a prayer for the mercy of God
and of Jesus Christ - mostly combined with — “grace”? and — “peace’’. In so
doing they took over Jewish greeting forms and expanded them. The mercy of God
can heal, e.g., Epaphras (Phil. 2:27); it is a present gift for the “household” (2
Tim. 1:16); and the final, future gift ensuring salvation (2 Tim. 1:18). Paul pro-
claimed the Christian hope of a future resurrection of an imperishable body hy
contradicting the sectarian group in Corinth which affirmed that the bodily
resurrection was already past; he describes those who confine this hope to this life
as “‘most to be pitied [eleeinoteroi]’ (1 Cor. 15:19).
5. Other NT Writings. (a) 1 Pet. begins by praising the mercy of God (1:3), by
which Christians “Shave been born anew to a living hope by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead” (cf. Eph. 2:4; 1 Cor. 15:19; see above). Just like Paul
in Rom. 9:25 f., he praises the enlargement of God’s mercy to take in the Gentiles
(2:10) by using Hosea’s words (Hos. 2:23[MT 2:25)]).
(b) James impressed on an indolent church that mercy shown here on earth has
its bearing on the final + judgment, and that “‘judgment without mercy” (aneleos,
only here in the NT) awaits the one who has shown no mercy (2:13; cf. Lk. 16:24 f.;
Matt. 18:33 f.; 25:40, 45).
(c) Jude, after mentioning the love of God which they have experienced and
their expectation of a final merciful judgment by Jesus Christ, urges his readers to
exercise a discriminating mercy to those around them (wv. 21-23; the force of
v. 23a is uncertain).
(d) Rev. 3:17, just like 1 Cor. 15:19, convicts a church, that of Laodicea, of its
pitiable (eleeinos) condition in spite of its earthly riches, and places it under the judg-
ment of Christ, which alone is valid. (Onthechurch at Laodicea — Cold, art. chliaros.)
597
MERCY
(e) Heb. uses the type of the high priest in the OT and his functions on the great
Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) to show the solidarity of Christ, who is greater than
any high priest, with his brethren, which guarantees a merciful and boundless
understanding (2:17; cf. 4:15), and so gives the despairing church confidence to
draw near the throne of grace to find mercy (4:16). H.-H. Esser
; ; oiktipuoc (oiktirmos), compassion, pity; olfktipw
eee | (oiktiro), have compassion, show pity or mercy;
oiktippov (oiktirmén), compassionate.
CL The root word ho oiktos (Aesch. and Soph. onwards) means the lamenting or
regretting of a person’s misfortune or death, then metaphorically sympathy,
pity. ho oiktirmos (Pindar onwards) was originally a poetic form of oiktos. The
derivative oiktirmon, compassionate (Gorgias, 5th cent. B.c., onwards), is seldom
found; oiktros, lamenting, and lamentable, is commoner. The vb. oiktird, also
oiktizo, (Homer onwards) means to have compassion, to pity, in the sense both of
mere feeling and of active merciful action; it is often a synonym of eleed (— eleos).
oT The words of this group are found about 80 times in the LXX, both the noun
and the vb. appearing c. 30 times each; they are used with the same meaning as
in secular Gk. The Heb. equivalents are mostly derivatives of the root rhm, have
compassion, but also of the root /nn, be gracious, all of which could have equally
well been translated by — eleos and its derivatives. They are found most
frequently in the Pss. Because of the Heb. plur. form rah*mim, oiktirmos occurs
always in the plur. (2 Sam. 24:14; Isa. 63:15; Pss. 25:6 [LXX 24:6]; 40:11[MT
40:12; LXX 39:12]; 51:1 [MT 51:3; LXX 50:3]; cf. Funk § 142).
NT |. In the NT the noun occurs 4 times in Paul, once in Heb.; the vb. twice in
Paul, the adj. twice in Lk. and once in Jas.
2. Since God is “‘the Father of mercies” (for the use of plur. see OT above) and
as such shows mercy to men (2 Cor. 1:3), Paul can use “‘the mercies of God”
(Rom. 12:1) as the bridge between doctrine and exhortation in Rom. Just as the
phrase sums up God’s saving acts and plan of salvation previously outlined in
Rom. 11, so also God’s mercies are the presupposition —the grounds of the
“therefore” (12:1) —for the Christian life. Because of them heartfelt sympathy
(Phil. 2:1, splanchna kai oiktirmoi) which creates unity of spirit must be expected
from Christians; they are to put on heartfelt sympathy (Col. 3:12, splanchna
oiktirmon). Heb. 10:28 f. points out that the punishment of the man who has
“outraged the Spirit of grace” and “‘has spurned the Son of God’’ will be even less
merciful than that meted out to the violater of the law of Moses.
3. The vb. is found only in Rom. 9:15, a quotation of Exod. 33:19, where it 1s
in parallelism to eleed (— eleos NT 4), with the sense of have compassion.
4. The adj. is found in Jas. 5:11, quoting Pss. 103:8 (LXX 102:8); 111:4 (LXX
110:4) together with polysplanchnos, merciful (— splanchna NT); it expresses a
quality of God. In the Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:20—49) Jesus calls for merciful
behaviour (v. 36), putting God’s merciful attitude as the measure of human action.
H.-H. Esser
598
MERCY
ondayyva (splanchna), inward parts, entrails, hence as
the seat of emotion, the heart, love; ondayyviCopai
(splanchnizomai), have pity, show mercy, feel sympathy; zodtondayyvoc (poly-
splanchnos), sympathetic, compassionate; evamdAayyvoc (eusplanchnos), tender-
hearted, compassionate.
onAayyva
CL to splanchnon (Homer onwards), used almost entirely in the plur., originally
meant the inward parts, or entrails (of the sacrificial animal), especially the
more valuable parts, the heart, lungs, liver, but also the spleen and the kidneys.
Since immediately after the killing of the animal they were removed, roasted and
eaten as the first part of the sacrificial meal, the word came to mean the sacrificial
meal itself. From Aesch. (Sth cent. B.c.) onwards we find splanchna used also for
the human entrails, especially for the male sexual organs and the womb, as the site
of the powers of conception and birth; hence children were sometimes called
splanchna, and ek splanchnon means from one’s own flesh and blood. Since the
intestines were regarded as the site of the natural passions, e.g. anger, fretful
desires, love, the word came to have the fig. meaning of heart (as the organ of
feelings and emotions), or the sense of premonition; finally it meant even affection
and love. Hence in the sing. (Soph. — 5th cent. B.c. — onwards) it means pity, com-
passion, love. The oldest form of the vb. is splanchneud, eat the entrails, prophesy
from the entrails. The later form splanchnizomai is found only once in secular Gk.,
in a 4th cent. B.c. inscription from Cos, with the same meaning. The metaphorical
meaning have mercy on, feel pity, is found only in the writings of Judaism and the
NT.
oT The LXX has the noun 15 times, the vb. twice. Only twice does the noun
translate Heb. words. In Prov. 12:10 it represents rah*mim (— eleos oT and
oiktirmos OT) mercy, and in Prov. 26:22 beten, inner parts, belly, The remaining
cases are in books like 2 Macc. and 4 Macc. with no Heb. original. We find the
meanings intestines (2 Macc. 9:5; 4 Macc. 5:30; 10:8), mother-love (4 Macc.
15:22, 29), heart (2 Macc. 9:6).
Test. XII is the first book to contain the predominant meaning merciful, show
mercy, in the frequent use of both noun and vb. They represent rah*mim and rhm
and form the preparation for the NT use (cf. Test.Zeb. 7:3; 8:2, 6 with 1QS 1:21;
2:1; cf. H. Késter, TDNT VII 552).
NT 1. Apart from its use with — eleos (NT 2 (c)) in Lk. 1:78 splanchna and its
adjectival derivatives are not found in the Synoptics, but the vb. is found only
in them.
2. There the vb. splanchnizomai is used (a) of the attitude of Jesus, (b) of the
actions of key persons at the turning points of three parables.
(a) The meaning goes beyond the lit. one of “‘his heart contracted convulsively”’
at the sight of crying human need and characterizes the messianic compassion of
Jesus (cf. H. Késter, TDNT VII 554); the cases are a > leper with his petition (Mk.
1:41), the people like sheep without a shepherd (Mk. 6:34; Matt. 14:14; cf. also
Mk. 8:2; Matt. 15:32: “I have compassion” in direct speech), the sight of the
harassed and exhausted crowd shortly before the sending out of the Twelve
(Matt. 9:36), two blind men who besought him (Matt. 20:34), and the widow at
599
MERCY
Nain mourning her only son (Lk. 7:13). In Mk. 9:22 it is used in the petition for
the driving out of a demon (— eleos NT 2 (a) on Matt. 17:15).
(b) In the two parables, Matt. 18:23-35, the unforgiving servant (— eleos NT
2 (b)), and Lk. 15:11-32, the prodigal son, splanchnizomai expresses the strongest
feeling of a merciful (Matt. 18:27) or loving (Lk. 15:20) reaction which forms the
turning point of the story. In contrast to both these cases we have the strongest
expression of righteous rejection (— Anger) in Matt. 18:34 and Lk. 15:28 (cf.
TDNT VII 554). In both parables splanchnizomai makes the unbounded mercy of
God visible; in the former we see also his deadly and decisive anger against the
one who having experienced mercy denies the fact by being unmerciful himself.
In the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30—-37) splanchnizomai in v. 33
expresses the attitude of complete willingness to use all means, time, strength, and
life, for saving at the crucial moment. It contrasts with the passing by on the other
side (vv. 31, 32). Since seeing and being prepared to help are one, it sets in motion
as with Jesus himself, a whole chain of events which together are called eleos
(v. 37a). Humanity and neighbourliness are not qualities but action (v. 37 f.).
3. In Paul the noun refers to the whole man, viz. in his capacity to love or as
one who loves (cf. Késter, TDNT VII 555 f.). Hence, it could be replaced by his
name or the corresponding personal pron. The frequent translation “‘heart’’ is
suitable, if we understand heart as the centre of loving action. In 2 Cor. 6:12 Paul
accuses his readers of giving their ability to love him only limited space, while in
7:15 he says of Titus that his heart goes out to them. In Phil. 1:8 the use of the
qualifying “Christ” indicates that Christ is the source of the love that embraces
and lays claim to the apostle’s whole personality. In Phlm. 7 and 20 the refreshing
of ta splanchna of the saints and of Paul (RSV heart), means the refreshing of the
whole person; there would be no change in meaning if it were either omitted (cf.
NEB), or rendered “‘altogether’’, except that it draws attention to the conscious joy
that Philemon has given. In v. 12 it could be rendered “‘as a piece of me”’ (cf. NEB,
Phillips), or as ‘‘as though I myself were coming.” That the word is used three
times in this short letter shows Paul’s inner participation, his personal concern in
this matter. For Phil. 2:1, Col. 3:12 — oiktirmos nt 2.
4. In Acts 1:18 the bowels in the physical sense are meant. 1 Jn. 3:17 means the
heart as the source of action that helps and relieves need.
5. For polysplanchnos (Jas. 5:11) — oiktirmos NT 4. eusplanchnos, tenderhearted,
is found in lists of Christian virtues in Eph. 4:32 and 1 Pet. 3:8.
— Brother, — Heart, — Love, — Man, — Righteousness H.-H. Esser
(a). R. Bultmann, eleos etc., TDNT II 477-87; and oiktiréd etc., TDNT V 159 ff.; J. D. M. Derrett,
“The Parable of the Good Samaritan”, in Law in the New Testament, 1970, 208-27; R. Jewett,
Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings, 1971; A. R. Johnson,
“‘hesed and hasid’’, in N. A. Dahl and A. S. Kapelrud, eds., Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum
pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel Septuagenario missae, 1955, 100 ff.; E. Kasemann, “Worship and
Everyday Life: A Note on Romans 12”, in New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 188-95; H.
Koster, splanchnon etc., TDNT VII 548-59; W. F. Lofthouse, “én and hesed in the Old Testa-
ment’’, ZAW Neue Folge 10, 1933, 29-35; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament,
1944, 94-130; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 63-66.
(b). F. Asensio, Misericordia et Veritas, 1949; J. Begrich, ‘‘b¢rit. Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer
alttestamentlichen Denkform”, ZAW 60, 1944, 1-11 (Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament,
ed. W. Zimmerli, 1964, 55-66); G. Braumann, “Jesu Erbarmen nach Matthaus”’, ThZ 19, 1963,
305.ff.; G. Delling, ““Das Gleichnis vom gottlosen Richter’, ZNW 51, 1962, 1 ff.; G. Eichholz,
600
MERCY/MIGHT
Jesus Christus und der Nachste, BSt9, 1951; and Einfiihrung in die Gleichnisse, BSt 37, 1963, 78 ff.; N.
Glueck, Das Wort hesed im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch, BZAW 47, 1927; L. Gulkowitsch,
Die Entwicklung des Begriffes hasid im Alten Testament, 1934; H. Gollwitzer, Das Gleichnis vom
barmherzigen Samariter, BSt 34, 1962; G. Harder, Paulus und das Gebet, 1936, 88 f.; E. Kamlah,
Die Form der katalogischen Pardnese im Neuen Testament, WUNT 7, 1964; W. Monselewski, Der
Barmherzige Samariter, 1967; L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, Il, 1882, 290-94; E.
Sj@berg, Gott und die Stinder im palastinensischen Judentum, BWANT 4, 1939; H. J. Stoebe, ‘‘Die
Bedeutung des Wortes hesed im Alten Testament’, VT 2, 1952, 244 ff.; S. Wibbing, Die Tugend-
und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, BZNW 25, 1959.
Might, Authority, Throne
The word dynamis suggests the inherent capacity of someone or something to carry
something out, whether it be physical, spiritual, military or political. It also denotes
the largely spontaneous expression of such dynamis. exousia, on the other hand, is
used only with reference to people. It indicates the power to act which given as of
right to anyone by virtue of the position he holds. Such authority exists, quite
independently of whether it can be exercised in given circumstances. thronos,
throne, is also relevant in this context. Originally it meant the seat of government,
and then, equally, someone who was in such a position of authority or strength.
The words bia, ischys, keras and kratos are discussed under — Strength.
Ovvaplic (dynamis), power, might, strength, force, ability,
capability, deed of power, resources; d0vayal (dyhamyi),
to be strong enough to, be able to; dvvadatyc (dynastés), a ruler, sovereign; dyvayow
(dynamoo), strengthen; évdvvaydw (endynamoo), strengthen; dvvatdc (dynatos),
powerful, strong, mighty, able; dvvatéw (dynated), be strong, able, strong enough;
adbvatoc (adynatos), powerless, impotent.
OUVALLIC
CL 1. dynamis, from the stem dyna-, means power, strength, might; cf. also the
vb. dynamai, be able, have the strength to, and the noun dynastés, a ruler (since
Soph.); further, the later vbs. dynamo6 and endynamood, strengthen, and finally the
adj. dynatos, strong, mighty, and the vb. derived from it which is only attested in
the NT, dynateo, be strong, have the strength to.
2. dynamis, frequently found from Homer onwards, means ability to achieve,
physical strength; and then troops, fighting forces, and political power. Where
Gk. philosophy and medicine reflect on the nature of man, the concept appears in
its original sense of the strength or ability to live and to act which is dependent on
physical strength and spiritual faculties.
dynamis figures in the realm of nature, e.g. in the power of heat and cold, and
the healing power of plants and elements. In Hellenistic times the word took on
metaphysical connotations. Posidonius saw the principle of being in an elementary
force (cf. K. Reinhardt, Poseidonius, 1921; Kosmos und Sympathie, 1926). The Stoics
equated the all-pervading creative-force with God (Alexander of Aphrodisiensis,
2, 308, 35 ff.; cf. J. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, I-IV, 1921-4). The
gnostics honoured God as the Almighty, and hoped for men’s redemption through
their incorporation into the heavenly powers (Corp.Herm., Poimandres, I, 26).
Men tried, above all through — magic, to obtain a share in the supranatural powers
601
MIGHT
(lamblichus, De Mysteriis 2, 1); sick people looked for healing through a demon-
stration of the power of the god Asclepius (P.Oxy. XI, 1381, 206 ff.).
oT |. Inthe LXX dynamis, as a rule, is used to translate the Heb. hayil (138 times)
or saba@ (113 times), and generally means military forces. It can also stand for
g°birah (power e.g. of aruler), as in Jdg. 5:31 35:21, or for ‘dz (e.g. Ps. 68 [67]: 28).
The plur. s*b@’6t often refers to the heavenly hosts (Ps. 102[103]:21); God is
‘““Yahweh Sabaoth’’, i.e. the Lord of the heavenly hosts (Ps. 45[46]:7, 11; 47[48]:8;
—» God, art. theos OT 2). The personal God now becomes the subject of the tran-
scendent powers; autonomous powers of nature and magic are pushed into the
background. God’s might is primarly revealed on the level of history, and to a par-
ticular people. The proof of God’s power, so fundamental for Israel, was the
miraculous deliverance at the Red Sea (Exod. 15:6, 13; Deut. 3:24; 9:26, 29). The
subsequent theological struggle with Canaanite religion led to the introduction of
—> nature into the field of God’s activity and power; the most comprehensive demon-
stration of God’s power is then seen to be the creation of the world (Jer. 34[27]:5;
39[32]:17). On the basis of the nation’s experience, individuals can also praise God
as their refuge and strength (Ps. 45[46]:1; Sam. 22:32 ff.). God’s power, at work in
the believer, is the —> Spirit (Mic. 3:8). God is Spirit, not flesh: he far transcends the
whole creation (Isa. 31:3 f.). It is not, however, dynamis, but ischys (— Strength)
that is mostly used as a translation for Heb. kdéah and ‘6z in the LXX: Israel did not
only potentially, but actually experience the manifestation of God’s power.
2. Jewish apocalyptic lived in the expectation of the judgment of the world in
the near future by God, hoping to see a display of the might of which Israel, as a
nation, currently experienced so little. kd6%h and ‘6z are used less, and g*burdah
comes into the foreground: this represents the power of God at work in the last
days. The writings from Qumran foresee the triumph of God’s might in the war
of the Children of Light against the Children of Darkness. The end of the age brings
the conclusive and world-embracing demonstration of God’s mighty deeds (g*bu-
rot), previously experienced by Israel alone (1QM 11:1-12:5). In this, God’s
power is expressed through the action both of human fighters and of the “mighty
ones” (gibbérim), i.e. the angels. But God himself can also engage in battle as a
mighty hero (gibbér), and give the cosmic struggle its decisive turn (1QM 12:9;
1QH 6:30). The world war thus becomes a world-judgment, above all ending the
rule of the devil (cf. Ass.Mos. 10:1; Test.Dan. 5:13-6:4). According to popular
expectation, the messiah, too, will be a victorious warrior, and will be the instru-
ment of God’s final demonstration of power (Pss. Sol. 17:24, 42 f., 51). The Teacher
of the Qumran community already knows the experience of God’s might (1QH
4:23), through the Holy Spirit, who dwells in him as the gift of God, and as a
promise of the eschatological fulfilment (1QH7:6f.; cf. 1QS 3:20-22). The
Teacher sees his task as that of making known God’s mighty deeds to all the living
(1QH 4: 28 f.).
The strong feeling that it was God’s might that was his essential characteristic
also illuminates the fact that, in Rabbinic writings, g*burdh serves as a circumlocu-
tion for the name of God; but it is never used of the forces of the devil and his
demons who oppose God. In the apocalyptic writings, the natural phenomena
between heaven and earth are called powers or powers of heaven (Eth.Enoch
602
MIGHT
40:9; 61:10; 82:8; 91:16). These were placed by God under the rule of — angels
(Jub. 2:2 f.). Wisdom can be described as a mirror of the power of God (Wis.
7:25 f.); and even the Torah is called ““my power” by God (Mek.Exod. 3:1 on
15:2), doubtless because it is the instrument of creation and the power or order in
the cosmos (cf. Ab.R.N. 3:14).
NT In the NT dynamis is found 118 times, and relatively frequently in the Pauline
writings except in 1 Tim., Tit., Philemon; there is no use of the noun in any of
the Johannine writings, nor in Jas. or Jude. dynamoo and dynateé only occur rarely
in Paul, but the vb. dynamai, to be able (expressing possibility or capability),
occurs as well in all those writings where the noun is not found, except for Tit. and
Phil.
1. The Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Here dynamis denotes the power of God, the
heavenly powers (in the plur.), miraculous power (in the plur., mighty deeds,
miracles) and the power which brings salvation to completion.
(a) God is the Mighty One (Lk. 1:48); and, according to Mk. 14:62, Jesus
himself used the reverential circumlocution of ‘“‘the power’’ for the name of God.
All his work is supported by the knowledge of the almighty power of God: with
God all things are possible (Matt. 19:26 par. Mk. 10:27, Lk. 18:27; Mk. 14:35).
At the end, his power is declared pre-eminently in the resurrection of the dead
(Mk. 12:24).
(b) The NT also speaks of “‘powers’’, i.e. cosmic powers between heaven and
earth that can appear in person (Mk. 13:25; cf. Rom. 8:38; Eph. 1:21; 1 Pet.
3:22). Significantly, superhuman representatives of evil are also credited with
having power, but it is always pointed out, either that their power has already been
broken, or that it will shortly be abolished (cf. Matt. 12:29 par. Mk. 3:27, Lk.
11:22; Lk. 10:19; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:2; 17:13 f.; + Angel). It is
characteristic for the NT and fundamental for its proclamation of “‘good news’’,
that through and in Christ, those things have taken place to which both the OT and
Judaism looked forward, God’s demonstration of power in the last days, and his
triumph over the climactic rise of evil.
(c) Christ was powerful in speech and action (Lk. 24:19). His — miracles are
called dynameis (cf. Heb. g*birét; i.e. ““mighty deeds’’), because in them God’s
rule on earth begins to have a powerful effect, and the fight against the devil is
carried out on the level of human existence (Matt. 12:22-30; Mk. 6:2, 5; Lk. 19:37;
Acts 10:58). Jesus is the “mightier one’? who, as God’s representative, subdues
the strong man, i.e. the devil (cf. Mk. 1:8 with 3: 22-30). Jesus’ miracles are worked
by a power within himself (Mk. 5:30 par. Lk. 5:17; Mk. 6:14). Lk. links this God-
given power with the Holy — Spirit in Lk. 1:35; 4:14; Acts 1:8; 10:38. The
miracles, therefore, are regarded as evidence from God that Jesus is the messiah,
the One anointed with the Spirit (Acts 2:22; 10:38). The exaltation of the messiah
further makes him the mediator of God’s saving might. For it is by the power of
the Spirit, bestowed on them by Jesus, that his servants perform mighty. acts
(Acts 4:7; 6:8; 8:13; 19:11). The apostles’ authoritative preaching (Acts 4:33; cf.
6:8-10) is seen as proof of a supernatural power.
(d) All these proofs of the Spirit and of power, of course, are only recognized
as such where there is — faith. They cannot take place in an area of unbelief
603
MIGHT
(Mk. 6:5). But the final demonstration of Christ’s power will be both public and
irresistible. This will be at the time of his return (Matt. 24:32 par. Mk. 13:28,
Lk. 21:29), when the > kingdom of God will be consummated “in power [en
dynamei|” (Mk. 9:1), or “with power [meta dynamedés]’ (Matt. 24:30 par. Mk.
13:26, Lk. 21:27). In this “latter-day” demonstration of God’s power the believer
already now has a share, which is why no limits are put to his actions, since all
things are possible for him (Mk. 9:23).
2. John’s Gospel and Revelation. (a) In the Gospel of Jn. the word Dini does
not occur, because here the messianic activity of Jesus is based on the sending of the
Son, and on the unity of will of both Father and Son. The Son can do nothing
without the Father (5:19, 30, dynatai); his miracles are signs which reveal the
divine power of Jesus (see 3:2; 9:16; 10:21 —always dynatai). Conversely, the
inability of men to believe in Jesus and to enter the sphere of God’s reality is due
to their being imprisoned in the world of darkness (3:3; 8:43; 14:17, ou dynatai).
Only — election (6:44) and rebirth (3:5) secure their release.
(b) Rev. sees the saints in a vision praising Christ who, by his enthronement in
heaven, has crowned his redeeming work on earth. Admittedly it is God who is
worshipped in the hymn of praise, for his honour and might (dynamis) and power
(Rev. 4:11; 7:12; 19:1), but the exalted Christ is also worthy to receive such
soverign power, and that on the grounds of his sacrificial death (5:13; 12:10). For
it was through Christ that God broke the power of evil rulers of the world (13:2);
Christ made possible the victorious culmination of God’s sovereign rule (11:17;
12:10; > Kingdom). In John’s vision, the night-visions of the Son of Man are
given a christological interpretation (cf. Rev. 13:1-14 with Dan. 7), and polemically
contrasted with Roman world-domination and the Caesar-cult.
3. Paul. Paul lays a greater emphasis on the present experience of the revelation
of God’s might, which he understands primarily in terms of the power which raises
the dead in the last days, and the new creativity of the Holy Spirit. This power of
God which is at work in the last days was perceptible in Christ, the Risen One;
and now Christ, the Exalted One, is the bearer and mediator of this same power.
Admittedly God’s invisible power can be deduced from the works of — creation
(cf. Rom. 1:20). But it is the raising of Jesus from the dead that represents the
central eschatological proof of God’s might (cf. Rom. 1:4; 1 Cor. 5:14; 2 Cor. 13:4;
Phil. 3:10; also Heb. 11:19). With the resurrection goes the exaltation (Eph. 1:20 f.),
whereby Christ becomes the “‘power of God’’ (1 Cor. 1:24), i.e. the constantly
available source of the power of God for his church. Paul in fact uses the vb.
endynamo6o, to strengthen, to describe this work of the exalted Christ in the lives of
individual believers in Phil. 4:13 (also Eph. 6:10; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:17; and 2:1).
In Christ’s mediating work there is a double revelation of God’s eschatological
power: the ~ Word which brings salvation and the Holy — Spirit who creates and
makes new.
(a) The gospel is effective as the power of God which brings salvation, partly
because the preacher speaks in the power of Christ (2 Tim. 1:8 f.; 4:17), but above
all because, as the Word of God, it grants salvation to all men (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor.
1:18). It announces the — love of the God whom men fear as the condemning
judge of the world, which was visibly proved on the — cross, where Christ died
for us, while we were still sinners (Rom. 5:8). As the good news of reconciliation,
604
MIGHT
the gospel itself becomes the power which creates freedom and salvation, when it is
recognized and accepted as such in — faith (see Rom. 1:16). The believer sees,
through the gospel, that the promises which were given in the OT have now come
into force; and he discovers the previously-announced gospel of God in OT pro-
phecy (Rom. 1:2).
(b) The natural man does not have the power to please God or to fulfil the
—> law. (cf. Rom. 8:7 f.; Gal. 3:21). In his weakness he even experiences the law
to be a power which misleads him into — sin (cf. 1 Cor. 15:56). The believer, on
the other hand, like his Risen Lord, lives in the power of God and of Christ
(2 Cor. 6:7; 13:3 f.; also Eph. 1:19). It is not obedience to the law (contrast CD
16:4 f.), but the love of Christ, manifest in power, which protects him from all the
cosmic powers (Rom. 8:38 f.). The kingdom of God is experienced in power, in
sharp contrast to mere words (1 Cor. 4:19 f.) and merely exterior piety (2 Tim.
3:4). Because it is intended for the glorification of Christians, there is a close link
between the power of God and — glory (doxa; cf. Rom. 1:4 with 6:4). Paul also
connects the power of God with the Holy Spirit. He is the power of the — resurrec-
tion and of the life in the new aeon, and the power which works signs and wonders
(Rom. 15:19; 1 Cor. 12:10; 28; Gal. 3:5), which also vindicate Paul’s apostleship
(2 Cor. 12:12). dynamis therefore denotes here the — Spirit insofar as he is revealed
in the mighty works of those gifted with the Spirit (pneumatikos, cf. 1 Cor. 2:13, 15;
3:1; 14:37; Gal. 6:1).
(c) It is the Spirit, who, as the power of Christ, realizes the authority of the
heavenly Lord in the earthly community. It is he who, to use E. Kasemann’s
phrase, is Christus praesens. ([Ed.] This is shown, for example, in the way that Paul
describes the Christian life sometimes in terms of a relationship with Christ [e.g.
om. 5:1; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:19 ff.; Gal. 2:20 f.; 4:6 ff.; Phil. 2:21; 3:8 ff.]
and sometimes as a relationship with the Spirit [e.g. Rom. 8:11, 14 ff.; 1 Cor. 2:4,
12 f.; 2 Cor. 3:6; 5:5; Gal. 4:6]. Paul is describing the same basic experience, but
in the one case he is approaching it from the standpoint of Christ and in the other
case from that of the Spirit through whom Christ is made present to the believer.
The two thoughts are brought together in, e.g., Eph. 2:18; Phil. 1:19, cf. 26.) The
Spirit has power to purify and judge the church (1 Cor. 5:4). He strengthens it and
trains it in patience, so that its members are kept in faith till the day of judgment
(1 Pet. 1:5; cf. Col. 1:11; Eph. 3:16 f.; 2 Thess. 1:11 f.). Since the Spirit is the
representative of the exalted Lord, he cannot be manipulated like the power of
—> magic in the hands of a magician (cf. Acts 8:18—20). Nor is he simply an extra
addition to men’s physical and spiritual powers. On the contrary, his supernatural
origin and his characteristic as the power of God is proved by the fact that it is in
weak men that he is powerful (2 Cor. 12:9 f.; cf. 1 Cor. 1:26-29; 2 Cor. 4:7;
6:4-10). For Paul, God is truly revealed as God where from a human standpoint
there is nothing to hope for. God gives life to the dead, and calls into existence
non-existent things (Rom. 4:17). That is why, from the human point of view, God
chose weak and unworthy things to be the objects of his demonstrations of might
(1 Cor. 1:27): the insignificant Israelites; Paul, the persecutor of Christians; and
the social nonentities of Corinth.
However, the greatest proof of this law of divine action and the justification
of the despised Christian way of life is to be found in the — cross. Christ died on |
605
MIGHT
the cross in weakness having renounced all personal claims to power, and now he
lives by the power of God (2 Cor. 13:4). Exactly the same is true of the Christian:
he is weak, but that is the very reason why God’s power equips him for life with
Christ. Accordingly, God’s work in the life of a Christian is always contrary to
human expectations. Paul, in prison, is able to say that he can do all things through
the one who makes him strong (Phil. 4:13). The strong in Christ, for their part,
are to regard themselves as under obligation to serve their weaker brothers. Thus
they will avoid the danger of forgetting that the strength they have is not their own,
but given them by Christ, and of misusing it for their own ends (Rom. 15:1). It is
questionable whether Paul’s opponents in 2 Cor. thought of Jesus and themselves
analogously with the Hellenistic ‘divine man [theios anér]’’, and so performed all
kinds of powerful deeds by virtue of the dynamis of Christ always in them, as
Dieter Georgi and others have suggested (cf. D. Georgi, Die Gegner des Paulus
im 2 Korintherbrief, 1964, with the discussion of C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 1973, 102 ff.).
(d) By the power of God, the Christian is assured of future perfection. The
present inner transformation, which has already begun, will be followed by the
visible and total transformation of the body for eternal life. This will take place
when the Christian is himself raised from the dead by the same power of God
which raised his Lord (1 Cor. 6:14; cf. 2 Cor. 4:14). Christ will then change him,
by his power, and so transfigure his lowly earthly body that it will be like his own
glorified body (Phil. 3:21). On this account, the Christian hope is based on the
resurrection, and is concerned to know the power which was made visible when
Christ was raised from the dead (Phil. 3:10; cf. 1 Cor. 4:19 f.).
4. The adj. adynatos, powerless, impotent, is used of the lame man at Lystra,
crippled from birth (Acts 14:6) who was healed in response to Paul’s command to
stand on his feet. It denotes what is impossible with men (Matt. 19:26; Mk.
10:27; Lk. 18:27), but which is not with God. In Rom. 15:1 it is used as a noun
in the contrast: ““We who are strong [hémeis hoi dynatoi| ought to bear with the
failings of the weak [tdn adynaton], and not to please ourselves.’ In Heb. 6:4
adynatos denotes the impossibility of restoring those who commit apostasy, which
stands in contrast to the impossibility of God proving false (6:18). In Heb. 10:4
it occurs in the assertion that it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats
should take away sin. This too stands in contrast with the fact that without faith
it is impossible to please God (11:6). O. Betz
ovata | é€ovaia (exousia), freedom of choice, right, power,
| authority, ruling power, a bearer of authority; é€ovaidl@
(exousiazo), have the right or power, exercise authority; Kate¢ovaldlw (katexou-
siazo), exercise authority over, misuse official authority, tyrannize; é€eoti (exesti),
3rd person sing. of the unused vb. &€e1pu (exeimi) which is used impersonally in the
sense: it is permitted, it is possible, proper, or even lawful.
CL exousia (derived from exesti, it is possible, permitted, allowed) denotes
unrestricted possibility or freedom of action; and then power, authority, right
of action. From the noun comes exousiaz6, to exercise one’s rights, have full
606
MIGHT
power of authority; and katexousiaz6, a word scarcely attested in secular Gk.,
meaning exercise, or misuse, of the authority of one’s office.
1. By contrast with —> dynamis, where any potential strength is based on inherent
physical, spiritual or natural powers, and is exhibited in spontaneous actions,
powerful deeds and natural phenomena, exousia denotes the power which may
be displayed in the areas of legal, political, social or moral affairs (Plato, Defini-
tiones 415b). For instance, it is always linked with a particular position or mandate;
so that it refers to the right of a king, a father or a tenant to dispose as he wishes
(P.Oxy. Il, 237); or the authorization of officials or messengers (Diod.Sic. 13, 36,
2; 14, 81, 6); but also the moral freedom of people to allow or to do something
(Plato, Definitiones 412d). The word is thus used only of people; it cannot be
applied to natural forces.
2. exousia is often (a) official power (cf. Lat. potestas) which does not necessarily
require enforcement; it can simply rest, or just stand in contradiction to the existing
power-structures. exousia can be delegated. Hence, where it is illegally seized or
unsurped, it can mean (b) despotic rule. These legal applications of the word
exousia explain the further derived meanings, (c) the office appropriate for the
authority; and in the plur. (d) office-holders and “‘the authorities’.
oT 1. In the LXX exousia occurs much less commonly than dynamis (50 as against
c. 400 times), and the vb. is also rare. exousia only rarely translates a Heb. word,
such as memSalah, dominion, kingdom (2 Ki. 20:13; Isa. 39:2). It is found more
commonly in the Gk. books of the Apocrypha, already used with its (for the
Rabbis) significant reference to the law, and with the meaning of permission to
do something (Tob. 2:13 S). The book of Daniel is important as background
material for the NT use of the word, where exousia, both in the LXX and in the
translation of Theodotion, is used as the Gk. equivalent for Aram. Soltanda’, do-
minion, power, with reference even to the whole world. The authority of the human
world-rulers originates from the supernatural realm; it is delegated by God, the
Lord of history. He whose rule is eternal (Dan. 4:31) installs and removes kings
(2:21), and can take their dominion away from them all (7:12). The unsatisfactory
and provisional nature of human government is grounded, in Dan. 7, in the origin
of the world-powers in the dominion of Chaos, opposed to God, and in their
denial of their divine commission. Therefore, at the end of the times, and when
human rule has reached its lowest point, the “Son of Man”’ (i.e. man) is enthroned
to symbolize the rule of God’s mercies, and for that very reason, of true humanity.
He is invested with might, glory and sovereign authority to rule all nations. His
dominion is an everlasting dominion, which never passes away (7:14). The “Son
of Man’, according to Dan. 7:27, means “the people of the saints of the
Most High’’, the true Israel of the last days. They shall receive kingly power,
and all sovereignties must obey them. In the Similitudes of Eth.Enoch and in 2
Esd., the night-vision of Dan. 7 undergoes further exegetical development and the
‘““Son of Man’ is equated with the final judge of the world or with the messiah
(— Son of God, art. Ayios tou anthropou).
2. Josephus and Philo. Both these writers follow the general Gk. usage, but stress
the aspect of authoritative, ruling power. Thus, in Josephus exousia means the
governmental power of kings (Life 112; Ant. 14, 302); in Life 72 the delegated
607
MIGHT
power of a ruler or officials (Life 72), or permission (Ant. 20, 193). It is also a basic
premise for Josephus that the power of the world’s governments is not gained
without God (War 2, 140), and that no-one can escape from the power of God
(Ant. 5, 109). exousia, used concretely in the plur., means the authorities (War 2,
350). Freedom of action, in the area of obedience to the Torah, can also be des-
cribed as exousia (Ant. 4, 24). Philo follows secular Gk. usage. exousia denotes
the absolute power of the king (Leg.Gai. 26, 54, 190), governor (Op.Mund. 17),
people (Jos. 67), and God (De Cherubim 27; Leg.All. 1, 95; Sacr. 60).
3. Rabbinic Usage. The range of meaning of exousia in the NT is particularly
influenced by the use of a word, not found in the OT, but of importance in the
teaching in the Rab. schools, the Heb. rast, ruling power, government; and r°sit
(Aram. r°sita’), power of attorney, power to act, freedom to do something.
(a) rastit denotes worldly government as a whole, especially the Roman empire,
which was regarded with distant suspicion (Aboth 1: 10; 2: 3). Worldly rule, here
below, was distinguished from the heavenly rule above (T. J. San. 6, 23d), but
God’s own authority was not directly designated as rasit, probably because it
is underived. In addition, the Rabbis were fighting the doctrine of the two powers
to which dualistic and gnostic thinkers and exegetes attributed the creation of the
world (Gen.R. 1:10; cf. B. San. 38a and B. Hag. 15a). Such views were rightly
condemned as heretical, for they endangered Jewish monotheism.
(b) rast denotes (i) authoritative power of action, competency within particular
social groupings, e.g. among members of a family (Ned. 10:2-4), the rights of a
house-owner (Bab.K. 5:3), and then the power of attorney linked with a particular
commission, such as that of an ambassador (Kidd. 4:9). (i) In a juridical sense,
the word is used for the right to teach (B.San. 5a), to inherit (Ket. 9:5), to marry
(Yeb. 4:11). All power is delegated by God. He even gives the destroying angels
authority to carry out their pernicious work (B.Pes. 112b; cf. Mek. Exod. 4 on
19:21. (aii) rasit means, finally, freedom of action, in the God-given order of the
Torah: it refers to what is allowed, as opposed to the commandments and the
halachic duties (Baba Kamma 3:5; B.Hull. 106a; B.Ber. 27b). R. Akiba taught the
paradoxically juxtaposed doctrines of the divine foreknowledge of all events and
freedom of human action (Aboth 3:15 f.).
4. Qumran. The idea of rdsvit does not appear in these writings, but it is important
to see in them the appointed presence of the dominion of the devil and of the power
of darkness (1QS 1:18, 23 f.; 2:19; 3:23; 1QM 13:5 f.; 14:9; 17:5 f.). These will
be destroyed at the end by the kingdom of the Archangel Michael (— Angel, art.
Michaél), and by the Israel he represents (1QM 18:7 f.). The word memsSalah,
used in these references for kingdom or dominion, corresponds with the Gk.
exousia, which itself translates memSalah in the LXX from time to time. In Test.Lev.
3:8 the heavenly powers are called exousiai (cf. Eth.Enoch 61:10). This plur. usage
has the same meaning as dynameis. As with the similarly used archai, powers
(—> Beginning), this word will have been influenced by Heb. r°stiy6t powers.
NT In the NT exousia appears 108 times, most frequently in Rev., Lk., and 1 Cor.
It is used in a secular sense, meaning the power to give orders (Matt. 8:9 par.
Lk. 7:8; Lk. 19:17; 20:20); in a concrete sense, meaning jurisdiction (Lk. 23:7);
and in the plur., meaning officials, authorities (Lk. 12:11; Tit. 3:1). In Rom. 13:1,
608
MIGHT
the “‘powers that be [exousiais hyperechousais]’, as the “authorities [archontes]’’
in v. 3, should be understood as state officials, not (as some suggest) as angelic
powers. See further M. Black, Romans, New Century Bible, 1973, 158 ff., who notes
the following recent studies on the question: O. Cullmann, “Zur neuesten Diskus-
sion tiber die Exousiai in R6m. 13, 1”, ThZ 10, 1954, 321 ff.; and The State in the
New Testament, 1957; C. D. Morrison, The Powers that Be: Earthly Rulers and
Demonic Powers in Romans 13.1-7, SBT 29, 1960; E. Wolf, ‘‘Politischer Gottes-
dienst”’, Festschrift K. O. Schmidt, 1961, 51-63; V. Zsifkovits, Der Staatsgedanke
nach Paulus in Rom. 13, 1964; H. von Campenhausen, “Zur Auslegung von Rém.
13. Diedamonistische Deutung des Exousia-Begriffs”’, Aus der Friihzeit des Christen-
tums, 1963, 81 ff.; E. Kasemann, “Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13”’,
in New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 196-216; C. E. B. Cranfield, ‘““Some
Observations on Rom. 13:1-7”, NTS 6, 1959-60, 241-49; A. Strobel, “‘Zum
Verstandnis von R6m. 13”, ZNW 47, 1956, 67-93; O. Michel, ‘‘Das Problem des
Staates in neutestamentlicher Sicht”, TLZ 83, 1958, 161-66; E. Bammel, ‘‘Ein
Beitrag zur paulinischen Staatsanschauung”’, TLZ 85, 1960, 837-40; G. Delling,
Rom. 13.1-7 innerhalb der Briefe des Neuen Testaments, 1962.
It is characteristic for the NT that exousia and dynamis are both related to
the work of Christ, the consequent new ordering of cosmic power-structures and
the empowering of believers. Both words are brought together in Lk. 9:1. exousia is
not attributed to the gift of the Spirit; whereas Jesus’ dynamis has its foundation
in his being anointed, his exousia is founded on his being sent. exousia is that
power, authority and freedom of action which belongs: (1) to God himself; (2) to a
commission in the last days; and (3) to a Christian in his eschatological existence.
1. God’s exousia. (a) God’s eschatological authority is linked with his réle as
disposer of world history, and as — judge of the world. By his own authority, he
has fixed the dates and times of the end, and has the termination of history in his’
control (Acts 1:7). He has the power to consign men to eternal ruin (Lk. 12:5).
Existential consciousness of the absolute freedom of God finds its expression in his
predestination: Paul compares God with a potter, who can do what he likes with the
clay (Rom. 9:21; cf. Isa. 29:16; 45:9; Jer. 18:6; Wis. 15:7; Sir. 36[33]:12 f.;
—> Determine; — Election).
(b) God can delegate eschatological authority, for instance, to the angel who
punishes at the judgment (Rev. 6:8); and other creatures can be involved (Rev.
9:3, 10, 19). By way of contrast, the heavenly powers (exousiai) are scarcely taken
into consideration in this eschatological event. They are generally mentioned along
with the archai, and have the same significance as the dynameis (Eph. 1:21; 3:10;
Col. 1:16; 2:10 — Beginning). Christ’s exaltation means that they have been
subjected to him (Eph. 1:21; 1 Pet. 3:22). But the opposition has not yet all been
broken: this means that the messiah’s rule must continue for the time being (1 Cor.
15:24). The natural man, as the Qumran writings also saw, stands under the domi-
nation of — darkness and the lordship of the devil (Col. 1:13; Acts 16:18). In
opposition to that stands the realm of — light, the kingdom of the Son, and God
himself (ibid.). In comparison with the Qumran writings, the devil (— Satan)
appears, in fact, to have increased power: he is called the “‘prince [or ruler] of this
world [ho archon tou kosmou toutou]” (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), even “‘the god of
this world [ho theos tou aidnos toutou]’ (2 Cor. 4:4; — Time, art. aidn). The devil,
609
MIGHT
like God, can delegate his rule over the world to others, e.g., the — Antichrist
(cf. Rev. 13:2, 4, 12). He even tempted Jesus with such an offer (Lk. 4:6). But
dualism is avoided, because even the devil’s power is allotted him by God (ibid.);
his activity fits into God’s plan and is therefore limited (Lk. 22:53). Statements
about the power of the devil are not to be assigned a place in a pessimistic view of
the world, but in the Good News of the redemptive work of Christ. It is precisely
where Jesus speaks of the devil as the “‘prince of this world” that he announces his
downfall.
2. The exousia of Jesus. (a) The work of the earthly Jesus announces that the
devil (— Satan) and the + demons have been deprived of their power: the One
who is sent by God has the authority to destroy the works of the devil and to snatch
men from his rule. Exorcism is therefore attributed to the authority of Jesus (Lk.
4:36), which he can also pass on to the disciples he sends out (Matt. 10:1 par.
Mk. 3:15, Lk. 9:1; Mk. 6:7; Lk. 10:19). Jesus acted with God’s authority when
he forgave a man his sins and confirmed the power of his word by a healing miracle
(Matt. 9:2-8 par. Mk. 2:3-12, Lk. 5:18-26; cf. Ps. 103:3). Jesus’ eschatological
commission, his purpose of saving God’s children, brought him into collision with
the —> law as the — Pharisees understood it. Jesus rejected the literalistic under-
standing of the letter of the law according to Rab. Halachah which stood in the
way of God’s saving will (Matt. 12:10, 12; Mk. 3:4; Lk. 14:3; Jn. 5:10). Jesus’
authority could be seen in this > teaching, which provoked astonishment (Mk.
1:22, 27; Matt. 7:29; Lk. 4:32), because he did not teach like the scribes. The
latter were guided by their teaching tradition (Matt. 7:29), whereas Jesus, the
anointed One, not only received his words from the mouth of God, like Moses
and the prophets, but spoke with the unique authority of the — Son who alone
knows the — Father and who alone can reveal him (Matt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22; cf.
also Matt. 28:18; Jn. 3:35; 13:3; 10:15; 17:25). The cleansing of the — Temple
(Matt. 21:12 f.; Mk. 11:11-17; Lk. 19:45 f.; Jn. 2:13-17; Exod. 30:13; Lev. 1:14;
Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11) also presupposes a consciousness of messianic authority.
(b) In John’s Gospel Jesus’ plenitentiary authority is based on the fact that he is
the Son and that he is sent (cf. e.g. Jn. 17:2); he has also been given the authority
of the judge at the end of time (Jn. 5:27). But in the Johannine writings, as the
Synoptics, Jesus seeks to save men rather than judge them. His power is not
forcible domination, but absolute freedom to be a servant to the world. He has the
exousia to give his life and to take it again (Jn. 10:18). Jesus’ sacrifice opens the
way for believers to the Father (Jn. 3:16; 14:6). Those who receive him and believe
in his name are given exousia to become — children of God (Jn. 1:12).
(c) This representation of Jesus’ authority in the Fourth Gospel anticipates the
resurrection. For with his exaltation, which followed on from Easter (—~ Height),
Jesus received from God all power in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). This ful-
filled Daniel’s vision of the enthronement and granting of power to the Son of
Man (cf. Dan. 7:14). But now in place of the collective “‘saints of the Most Hi7”’,
stands Christ. Further, God’s power is not realized by violently subjugating the
nations, but by the spread of the — gospel, winning the world to faith in Christ.
Hence it is the church, not the sovereign rule of — Israel, which outwardly expresses
the reign of the messiah on earth (Acts 1: 6-8). For the cross and the exaltation of
Christ signify the disarming of the evil one, the judgment and the turning-point of
610
MIGHT
the ages. This must be preached as Good News to all the world. The exalted Lord
therefore sends out his messengers and empowers them for their service in the gos-
pel (Matt. 28:18—20). Analogous with Jesus’ earthly ministry, and in accord with
the contents of the Easter message, the —> apostles of Christ received power to
confer the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:19; 19:6; but cf. 2:38; 10:44-48), and to build up
rather than to destroy (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10). Because of his spiritual ministry as a
servant in the church, an apostle has the right to have his physical needs looked
after by the church (1 Cor. 9:4-6; 2 Thess. 3:9). exousia in these passages means a
right or prerogative.
3. The exousia of believers. The authority of a Christian believer is founded on
the rule of Christ and on the disarming of all powers. It implies both — freedom
and service. As Luther put it in The Freedom of a Christian (1520): “‘A Christian
is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful
servant of all, subject to all” (Luther’s Works, ed. H.T. Lehmann, XXXI, 1957, 344).
He is free to do anything (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23; exestin); this assertion which was
made initially by the sectarian enthusiasts at Corinth, was taken up by Paul who
acknowledged it to be correct. The believer has full freedom of action, because the
law, as a prohibitive barrier, has been broken down through Christ’s redeeming
and saving act, and because he has received the gift of the Spirit of freedom. He
has the freedom and the power to dispose everything as he will, because, now that
Christ has been exalted, nothing is any longer under the rule of the powers. In
practice, however, this theoretically unrestricted freedom is governed by considera-
fion of what is helpful to other individual Christians and the congregation as a
whole, in view of the fact that the complete redemption is still to come (1 Cor.
6:12; 10:13). Since God’s eschatological work has not yet been consummated
either in individual Christians or in the structures of the world, it is important that
people should be sensible, and take into account both their own Christian lives,
still bound to “the flesh of the old Adam’’, and also the — conscience of weaker
brothers (1 Cor. 10:28, 31 ff.), and not plunge into unbridled freedom, as if the
resurrection of believers had already taken place! It is just such an unrestrained
use of one’s freedom which could precipitate a Christian into a new servitude.
Hence he is not to let anything be his master. “‘ ‘All things are lawful [exestin] for
me’, but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful [exestin] for me’, but I
will not be enslaved [exousiasthésomai] by anything” (1 Cor. 6:12). “‘ ‘All things are
lawful [exestin]’, but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful [exestin]’, but
not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neigh-
bour” (1 Cor. 10:23 f.). The quotations within these quotations are probably the
slogans of the libertines at Corinth. Paul counters them by admitting their truth,
but by showing that it is not the whole truth. O. Betz
| @povoc @povoc (thronos), throne, seat.
CL 1. thronos comes from the Indo-Germanic root *dhere-, to hold, and is related
to the Lat. firmus (firm, steadfast, powerful) and Ger. dingen (to secure). In
Homer, it means a chair with an attached foot-stool (thrénos; cf. Homer Od. 19,
611
MIGHT
57); later mainly with a high back-rest and arm-rests. The word, used originally
without any particular symbolic force, was very widely used, by contrast with the
Lat. thronos, first used by Suetonius and referring only to the seat of a god (cf.
Octavius Augustus Caesar 70). The Gk. word only took on this meaning later
in its history. It could also be used metaphorically, as in the plur. thronoi, for power
(cf. Aesch., Prometheus 228; and cf. Col. 1:16 of angelic powers). To be seated on
the throne (kathémai, set oneself, sit) is a sign of regal or divine majesty (cf. Homer,
Il. 4, 1; Od. 13, 264; —> Sit).
2. In the Gk. world, from Mycenaean times, the seat of the master of the house
was a seat of honour — a conception taken over via Crete from the Orient. But it
is also offered to guests and bards: it does not indicate a superior position in the
oriental sense. In bas-reliefs the dead are given such a chair; in epic poetry the
gods (Aesch., Eumenides 229), and especially Zeus (Homer, JI. 8, 436-442), are so
honoured, and represented in sculpture. This can hardly be called a throne-cult.
Representations of an empty divine throne are rare and late.
OT 1. The royal throne, in the strict sense, derives from the Orient. Sitting on the
throne denotes the unique exaltation of the absolute ruler, his total superiority
over against those who are subject to him. It is the sole right of the ruler to sit
(kathémai) on the throne; the suppliant or servant stands before him — (cf. the
Hammurabi Stele; see illustration in L. H. Grollenberg, Atlas of the Bible, 1957,
plates 79-81 on p. 31). Only when the king sits on the throne does he finally take
his power. The magnificent ornamentation indicates his divine dignity; at the side
of the throne, to right and left, stand attendant heavenly beings, —> cherubim,
winged creatures with human heads or lions, as pictorial symbols of ruling power
(cf. 1 Ki. 10:18 ff.). Characteristic for oriental thought is the mutual interplay of
ideas of regal and divine power, something which was foreign to Greece until the
time of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.c.). The earthly ruler was honoured as the
“Son”, or even (as in Egypt) as the incarnation of the divine. The nature of their
kingship was similarly represented.
2. In the first instance the OT reflects, as one would expect, the world of ori-
ental throne symbolism. Since the institution of the monarchy the throne (Heb.
kissé’) was the sole prerogative of the ruler (Gen. 41:40), his relatives (1 Ki. 2:19)
or representatives (Neh. 3:7). Since the — king was originally also the — judge,
the throne was both a visible symbol of regal power (2 Sam. 3:9; 14:9) and of
justice (Ps. 122:5). The throne was thus a constant factor, over against the changing
bearers of power. In this way, Nathan’s promise of the permanen¢e of the Davidic
rule (2 Sam. 7:13) was linked with the throne (cf. also 1 Chr. 28:5; 29:23). This
formed the primary link with the later hope of the everlasting throne of the messiah.
But, in Judaism it was not identical with the throne of God (see below OT 5).
3. Naturally in the OT the throne represents God’s power and righteousness.
This can never be simply identified with the king’s power, however much the
oriental court style was taken over. The Israelite king stood in an adoptive rela-
tionship with Yahweh (Ps. 2:7). Yahweh’s throne is variously described and located
in the OT. Jeremiah specified Jerusalem, on the one hand (3:17), and Israel, on the
other (14:21, thronos doxés “‘throne of glory” is more a metaphorical sense).
Ezekiel, in his great vision of the future, saw the new — temple as the abode of
612
MIGHT
the divine throne (43:7); while in Isa. 66:1 heaven is said to be Yahweh’s throne
(cf. Isa. 6:1; 14:13).
The special nature of the divine kingship is seen in the awesome throne-vision
of Isaiah (6:1—13; cf. also 1 Ki. 22:19), but most clearly in Ezekiel (1:4-28). Here
Yahweh’s kingly power is seen under the symbolism of transcendent creatures,
representing the world-rule of their Lord. They each have four faces, representing
God’s omnipresence, and face the world, while above their out-spread wings
“‘slittering like an awe-inspiring crystal’? (1:22) stands the vault of heaven which,
according to the account of creation in Gen. 1:6f., keeps the destroying floods
away from the creation. It is above this world, that is to say, entirely and inaccessibly
out of men’s reach, that God’s throne is seen, surrounded by an unearthly bright-
ness. Here is a pictorial, rather than a conceptual description, both of the sheer
transcendence of God, and of his omnipresence in the world.
The throne of the “Ancient of days” in Dan. 7:9 probably has a similar sig-
nificance (cf. Ps. 97:2; Eth.En. 14:18 f.) The other thrones mentioned, which have
given rise to much debate, are probably for the assessors or the jury in the court
proceedings. It is not certain who these would originally be. Later interpretation
makes them the elect saints (cf. Matt. 19:28; 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 20:4). See further
H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel,
1935; J. A. Emerton. “The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, JTS New Series
9, 1958, 225-42; N. W. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, 1965, 107 ff.
4. The hidden dynamic of this throne-theology is revealed by the rite of Yahweh’s
ceremonial enthronement, which is reflected in the evidence, e.g., of Pss. 24; 93;
96-99. Yahweh’s kingship is not an inactive representation, but a fight that has
just been won. This is particularly clear in Ps. 93; but the fight-motif comes again
in Pss. 46 and 89:7 ff. According to S. Mowinckel, “The [enthronement] festival
celebrates Yahweh as the creator of the world, as king and ruler of the world, in
his victory over the dragon, the flood and all his enemies” (Religion und Kultus,
1953, 76). In this ritual, which was part of the New Year Festival, the Ark of the
Covenant is thought to have represented the unoccupied throne of God: Yahweh
is pictured as present, though invisible, ‘“‘enthroned on the cherubim”’ (Ps. 99:1),
which were on both sides of the flat surface of the ark. The Ark was “‘the earthly
counterpart of the heavenly throne” (W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament
IT, 1967, 193). For further discussion of kingship and the enthronement Psalms
—> Myth, art. mythos OT; — King, Kingdom, art. basileia or; and the following
literature: G. Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 1973, 139-50; J. de Fraine,
L’ Aspect religieux de la Royauté Israelite, 1954; H. Ringgren, The Messiah in the
Old Testament, 1956; and Israelite Religion, 1966, 220-38; I. Engnell, Studies in
Divine Kingship, 1943; G. Widengren, Sakrales Kénigtum, 1955; A. R. Johnson,
Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 1955; G. W. Ahlstrém, Psalm 89, 1959; S. H.
Hooke, ed., Myth, Ritual and Kingship, 1958; S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s
Worship, I-II 1962; and He That Cometh 1954; A. A. Anderson, The Book of
Psalms, III, 1972; and literature in the bibliography under — King.
5. Late Judaism, in connection with Ps. 93, counted the throne of Yahweh as
one of the “‘pre-cosmic works of God” (O. Schmitz, TDNT III 163). Yahweh’s
throne is described in detail in Eth.Enoch 14:18 ff. and Sl.Enoch 2—20; but a
messiah sitting on this throne is only mentioned in Eth.Enoch 51:3; 55:4; 62:2, 3,
613
MIGHT
5 ff. This would have been a profanation for Judaism, which regarded the messiah
as a man. In Eth.Enoch, the messiah, who is here a heavenly figure, administers
justice before the throne of God (45:3).
6. 11QMelchizedek refers to — Melchizedek taking his seat on high as head of
the heavenly court in response to Ps. 7:7b (cf. RSV). There are also references to
the throne of the coming son of David in 4Q161 (pesher on Isa. 11:1 ff.) and 4Q174
(pesher on 2 Sam. 7:14).
NT 1. The NT adds little to these OT conceptions. It takes them over quite natur-
ally and without emphasis, except for Rev., where the throne plays a dominant
role. The word occurs there 41 times, over against 14 instances in the rest of the
NT. In Matt. 5:34, Jesus speaks of — heaven as God’s throne and for that reason
forbids men to swear by it. The promise to Nathan is alluded to in Lk. 1:32, with
extended reference to the messianic throne (2 Sam. 7:12, 16; cf. also Acts 3:20 f.).
Genitive phrases, modelled on LXX usage, are found, such as “throne of glory”
(Matt. 19:28; 25:31; cf.il Sam. 2:8) and “throne of grace’’ (Heb. 4:16). The latter
is the antitype to the “mercy seat [hilastérion]’ in the earthly sanctuary (Heb. 9:5;
cf. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 1964, 86; —
Reconciliation, art. hilaskomai).
2. A striking point in the NT is that the — Son of man sits on the divine throne
of judgment. It is not the conception as such that is new (see above oT 5) but the
claim of a historical man to be this eschatological judge. Matt. 19:28 even promises
such ruling authority to the twelve apostles, as co-judges over Israel (— Disciple,
art. akoloutheo). In Matt. 25:31 ff. the Son of man judges the world from his throne
of glory entirely on his own. That is the provocative claim of Jesus. There is a
pictorial tension between these statements and those (following Ps. 110:1) which
view the messiah “sitting at the right hand of God” (— Hand, art. dexios); but
there is no material contradiction.
3. (a) In Heb. the phrase “‘the throne of grace [thronos tés charitos|’ (4:16)
appears, in implicit antithesis to the usual Rab. concept of two divine thrones — that
of justice, and that of grace. In exhortation to stand fast to our confession, Heb.
4:15 f. declares: ““For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with
our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet
without sinning. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that
we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”
(b) In what is widely considered to be a baptismal hymn, Col. 1:15—20, thronoi
are mentioned along with sovereignties (kyriotétes), powers (archai) and authorities
(exousiai). This list, dependent on S].Enoch 20 and Test.Lev. 3, is dealing with the
various groups of angels, who belong to the council of the heavenly throne (cf.
1 Ki. 22:19). The designation thronoi could derive from the fact that thrones stand
at the disposal of this group of angels (cf. Rev. 4:4; and TDNT III 16f.). Within
the compass of the hymn, this enumeration declares that Christ’s creative power
does not only embrace what is visible, the earth, but also what is invisible — the
world of angels. See further E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia, 1971,
51 ff.
4. (a) The picture of the throne in Rev. is based particularly on Ezek., and is
further developed especially in ch. 4. The throne signifies again the transcendent
614
MIGHT
majesty of God. The ‘‘crystal sea” of v. 6 is not the sea of nations, but the vault of
heaven, as it is in Ezek. 1. The twenty-four elders on their thrones are new (v. 4);
they are the heads of the heavenly court-council. They represent the old and new
Israel, consisting of the heads of the twelve tribes together with the twelve apostles.
Their function is like that of the heavenly beings. They constantly adore “him
who is seated on the throne” (v. 10) before whom they fall down and cry: “Worthy
art thou, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for thou didst
create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created” (4:11).
(b) A new factor appears for the first time in Rev. 5:6 ff. “‘In the middle of the
throne [en meso tou thronou]” (not “between’’, as RSV and some translations render
it), that is, right in the centre, as the divine judgment of the world begins, appears
the One who is to carry it out, “the Lamb that was slain’’. Christ, in highest glory, is
here pictured in terms of complete defencelessness. Nowhere is the paradox of the
NT revelation of Christ shown so clearly as here. God’s power is, from the human
point of view, total powerlessness. Christ carries out the judgment in, and as, a
self-sacrifice. The One who sits on the throne was man. He turned power into service
and brotherhood. To him, at the end of time, the whole creation pays its homage
(Rev. 5:13).
(c) Alongside this Christian conception of the throne as seen by faith, appears in
Rev. (and similarly in 2 Thess. 3:4) the opposing throne of the — Antichrist, who,
on his side, proclaims his power and demands submission (13:4 ff.). This throne,
too, speaks of dominion — not of the —- Lamb, but of the — Dragon (12:2). But
his dominion succumbs to the wrathful judgment of the Lamb (16:10). Contrary to
all appearances, it cannot lasi. The throne of the Lamb is ultimately triumphant.
From it flows the river of the water of life in the new — Jerusalem (22:1).
C. Blendinger
—» Angel (see especially the bibliography for further literature), — Beginning, —
Caesar, —-> Demon, — King, — Spirit, — Strength
(a). W. Beilner, ‘Authority’, EBT I 52-55; M. Bouttier, Christianity according to Paul, SBT 49,
1966, 66 ff.; G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers, 1956; H. von Campenhausen, ‘‘The Problem
of Order in Early Christianity and the Ancient Church’’, in Tradition and Life in the Church, 1968,
123-40; and Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries,
1969; O. Cullmann, The State in the New Testament, 1957; D. Daube, ‘“‘exousia in Mark 1, 22
and 27”, JTS 39, 1938, 45-59; W. Foerster, exousia etc., TDNT II 562-75; B. Gerhardsson,
Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early
Christianity, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 22, 1961; W. Grundmann, dynamai etc.,
TDNT II 284-317; A. T. Hanson, ‘“‘The Conquest of the Powers’’, in Studies in Paul’s Technique
and Theology, 1974, 1-12; J. Jervell, ‘“The Twelve on Israel’s Thrones: Luke’s Understanding of
the Apostolate”, in Luke and the People of God, 1972, 75-112; E. Kasemann, ‘‘Principles of the
Interpretation of Romans 13”, in New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 196-216; H. Kiein-
knecht, G. von Rad, K. G. Kuhn, K. L. Schmidt, basileus etc., TDNT 1 564-93; J. Michl, “‘Princi-
palities and Powers’’, EBT II 712-16; C. D. Morrison, The Powers that Be: Earthly Rulers and
Demonic Powers in Romans 13.1—-7, SBT 29, 1960; R. Murray, “Authority and the Spirit in the
New Testament”, in J. Dalrymple et al., Authority in a Changing Church, 1968; C. H. Powell, The
Biblical Concept of Power, 1963; O. Schmitz, thronos, TDNT III 160-67; H. Schlier, Principalities
and Powers in the New Tesatment, 1961; C. Schneider, kathémai etc. TDNT I 440-54; W. Zimmerli,
Ezekiel, 1, Hermeneia, 1976.
(b). E. Bammel, ‘Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Staatsanschauung”’, TLZ 85, 1960, 837-40; H.
Bardtke and H. D. Wendland, ‘“‘Macht’’, EXKL II 1205 ff.; L. Bieler, Theios anér. Das Bild des
“‘gdttlichen Menschen” in Spdtantike und Friihchristentum, \-II, 1935-36; and “‘dynamis und
615
MIGHT/MIND
exousia’’, Wiener Studien 55, 1935, 182-90; H. von Campenhausen, ‘“‘Zur Auslegung von Rom. 13.
Die démonistische Deutung des Exousia-Begriffs”, in Aus der Friihzeit des Christentums, 1963,
81 ff. (reprinted from memorial volume for A. Bertholet, 1950, 97 ff.); O. Cullmann, ‘“‘Zur neuesten
Diskussion tiber die Exousiai in R6m. 13.1”, ThZ 10, 1954, 321 ff.; G. Delling, Rém. 13, 1-7
innerhalb der Briefe des Neuen Testaments, 1962; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des
Paulus, 1909; W. Eichrodt, Der Prophet. Hesekiel, ATD 22, 19652; L. Goppelt, ‘““Der Staat in der
Sicht des Neuen Testaments”, Christologie und Ethik, 1968, 190 ff.; W. Grundmann, Der Begriff
der Kraft in der neutestamentlichen Gedankenwelt, 1932; K. Hartenstein, Der wiederkommende
Herr, 1954°, 82 ff.; O. Michel, ““Das Problem des Staates in neutestamentlicher Sicht’’, TLZ 83,
1958, 161-66; F. Neugebauer, ‘“‘Zur Auslegung von Rom. 13, 1-7’, KuD 8, 1962, 151 ff.; E.
Schweizer, Die Herrschaft Christi und der Staat im Neuen Testament, BEvTh 11, 1949; O. Schmitz,
“Der Begriff dynamis bei Paulus’’, Festschrift fiir A. Deissmann, 1927, 139 ff.; J. Schniewind, ‘‘Die
Archonten dieses Aeons, 1 Kor. 2.6-8’’, in Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsdtze, ed. E. Kahler, 1952,
104-9; N. Sdderblom, D. Georgi, K. E. Lggstrup, R. Dahrendorf, ‘‘Macht’’, RGG? IV 564 ff.; A.
Strobel, ‘““Zum Versténdnis von R6m. 13”, ZNW 47, 1956, 67 ff.; R. Walker, Studie zu Rém. 13,
1-7, ThEH Neue Folge 132, 1966; V. Zsifkovitis, Der Staatsgedanke nach Paulus in Rém. 13, 1-7,
1964.
Mind
boos dpovéw (phroned), think, judge, give one’s mind to,
| bpdvyois set one’s mind on, be minded; ¢pdvyua (phronéma), way
of thinking, mentality; ¢@pdvnaic (phronésis), way of thinking, frame of mind,
intelligence, good sense; dpdvipoc (phronimos), intelligent, discerning, sensible,
thoughtful, prudent.
CL Words derived from the stem phren- occur frequently in classical Gk. literature,
the vb. phroned from Homer onwards, the nouns phronéma and phronésis from
Aeschylus and Sophocles respectively, and the adj. phronimos likewise from So-
phocles. The words are found most often in their ordinary meanings as above,
although phronésis frequently has the fuller sense of discernment, judicious insight,
particularly in Plato and Aristotle. Similarly phronimos means intelligent, discern-
ing, judicious.
oT All the words appear in the Gk. translations of the OT. The Heb. equivalents
are hdkam and bin with their respective derivatives, the second occurring
slightly more often than the first. Various meanings are possible, e.g., in Job 5:13
Phronésis stands for cunning, craftiness, phronimos having the corresponding adj.
sense in Gen. 3:1. In one place phronésis means a peasant’s knowledge of his job
(da‘at) (Prov. 24:5), and on two occasions in Theodotion’s translation of Dan.
it means intellectual acuteness, either in the interpretation of dreams (5:12) or as a
qualification for training in the palace of the Persian king (1:4). The words occur
predominantly, however, (especially as nouns and adjs.) in the OT Wisdom Litera-
ture, where the prevailing meaning is that of discernment. Both noun and adj.
are regularly used with reference to men, though phronésis occasionally denotes
the creative understanding of God (e.g. Isa. 40:28; Jer. 10:12; Prov. 3:19, in these
last two passages the word being used in parallel with sophia, wisdom). In the
LXX, therefore, one can detect a tendency to fill out the meaning of these words in
accordance with the OT doctrine of — wisdom (art. sophia oT).
NT 1. The tendency found in the LXX hardly continues into the NT, one possible
reason being the NT’s predominant use of the vb. as opposed to the nouns and
616
MIND
adj. phroneo occurs 26 times, of which no less than 23 are in Paul, while phronéma
is found only 4 times (all in Rom. 8), phronésis twice and phronimos or the adv.
phronimos 15 times altogether. The point is that, unlike phronéma and phronésis,
the vb. tends to retain its ordinary meaning; it is, so to speak, more neutral and
requires a context to indicate its true sense. This can be seen in passages where
phroneo means to think, judge (e.g. Acts 28:22; 1 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 1:7; 4:10), where
the reference is not so much to the process of thinking in itself, but rather to the
content of what is thought.
This is even clearer in those places where phroneo, for the most part used abso-
lutely, acquires its proper meaning only from its immediate grammatical context,
e.g. from its use with the prefix hyper-, think more highly (Rom. 12:3), or with
some characteristic word like sos (as in sdphronein also in Rom. 12:13, ‘“‘to
think with sober judgment), tapeinos (cf. the compound tapeinophrosyné, Phil 2:3;
—> humility, art. tapeinos), or the object ta hypséla lit. ‘‘do not think high things’’,
i.e. “do not become proud” (Rom. 11:20 RSV; cf. 12:16). These words, some of
which form compounds with phroned (e.g. hyperphroned, sophroned, Rom. 12:3),
all indicate direction (‘“‘upwards” or “downwards”’) and impart to phroneo its
specific meaning in a given context. Paul’s whole use of language in Rom. 12:3
indicates how deeply a person’s thoughts are affected by their object and their
direction.
2. It follows that, although the vb. as such has no particular content, there can
nevertheless be no such thing as neutral thinking. Man is always aiming at some-
thing. Striving and endeavour are part of his nature. He must seek to possess, and
he must be committed. This is the idea behind phronéma, which occurs only in
Rom. 8 and which is well translated by “‘setting the mind on”’ (cf. RSV). In the
context of this chapter, which describes the new life in Christ as a life in the Spirit
of God, Paul testifies that a man’s mind is set on certain things, and that what
these are depends on whether he is in — “‘the flesh” or in — “‘the Spirit”. Thus,
those who live according to the flesh (hoi kata sarka ontes, Rom. 8:5) set their
minds on the things of the flesh, i.e. their thinking and striving are directed, as is
the whole of their life, towards those things which are “‘merely human, the earthly-
transitory” (R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 238). On the
other hand, those who are living in the — Spirit of God (hoi de kata pneuma
ontes) (Rom. 8:5) endeavour to live in the light of the promised gift of the Holy
Spirit and under his control. To them that are thus minded there is a promise of
“‘life and peace” (Rom. 8:6). But to set one’s mind on the flesh means death, not
only because there is an inevitable connection between the two (cf. Rom. 5:21;
6:23), but also because fleshly-mindedness is rebellion against God, and must be,
since it cannot submit to his — law (Rom. 8:7). This passage makes it abundantly
clear that the way one thinks is intimately related to the way one lives, whether in
Christ, in the Spirit and by faith, or alternatively in the flesh, in sin and in spiritual
death. A man’s thinking and striving cannot be seen in isolation from the overall
direction of his life; the latter will be reflected in the aims which he sets himself.
This close inter-relationship between life and thought is echoed by the wide
range of meanings attaching to phroneo. It expresses not merely an activity of the
intellect, but also a movement of the will; it is both interest and decision at the
same time. Hence the meaning can actually extend to the idea of “taking sides”’
617
MIND
with someone or something. There is just a hint of this in Rom. 8:5, while the idea
is uppermost in Mk. 8:33 (par. Matt. 16:23). Peter is reproved by Jesus because
his thought and will are taking the side not of the things of God but of the things
of man (which are opposed to God). It is God’s will that Jesus should be offered as a
sacrifice, and by opposing the divine will Peter is furthering the cause of God’s
enemies, indeed he is on the side of the adversary himself (hence the sharp rebuke
“Get behind me, Satan!’’).
3. But what should a Christian strive towards? What should be his aim? What
kind of thinking is fitting for him (cf. Rom. 12:3)? The answer which seems most
obvious to the natural man, namely that a man should strive for high ideals, is at
first sight attractive to the Christian too. After all, God has given him gifts which,
as a Christian, he could seek to perfect and use for exalted purposes. But this
striving after “high things’ can lead to jealousy, disappointment and schisms in
the church, as is shown by the example of Corinth. Hence the apostle exhorts his
readers to think with sober judgment according to the “‘measure of faith [metron
pisteos]|” (Rom. 12:3), for ““whatever does not proceed from faith is sin’? (Rom.
14:23), and faith, i.e. their new life in Christ, will direct their thinking aright, keep
it within proper limits and save it from pride.
The warning that a man who sets his mind on “high things” runs the risk of
becoming arrogant is also found in Rom. 11:20, where hypséla phronein clearly
means to cherish proud thoughts, to be haughty. In Rom. 12:16 Paul warns: “Do
not be haughty, but give yourselves to humble tasks”’ (or ‘“‘associate with the lowly’’,
as RSV, depending on whether fois tapeinois is taken as neut. or masc.). For those
who consider themselves clever (phronimoi par’ heautois, Rom. 12:16b, adapting
Prov. 3:7) are under God’s judgment: “‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to
the humble” (1 Pet. 5:5, quoting Prov. 3:34; see below 6 (b)). Whether Paul 1s
warning ‘‘charismatic’”’ believers to beware of spiritual pride (as presumably he is
in Rom. 12:16), or censuring Gentile Christians for arrogance towards the Jews
(as in Rom. 11:20), the message to Christians is clear: they are to aim not higher
but lower, in order to identify with the lowly and the humble, and are to strive
towards the unity of the church, which is endangered by the arrogance of indivi-
duals or of whole groups.
4. Moreover, as so often in Paul, a Christian’s aims are closely intertwined with
the motives underlying them. The apostle frequently issues exhortations along
these lines; e.g. at least 6 times his readers are commanded to “‘be of the same mind”’
(to auto phronein, think the same, Rom. 12:16; 15:5; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 2:2; 4:2;
to hen phronein, lit. “think the one’’, i.e. be “of one mind’’, Phil. 2:2 RSV; simi-
larly ouden allo phronein, lit. ‘think no other’, cf. RSV “take no other view’’, Gal.
5:10; cf. Phil. 3:15). Such exhortations, which are frequently linked with warnings
against arrogance (e.g. Rom. 12:16; 15:5; implicitly in Rom. 11:20; Phil. 3:15),
do not spring simply from a pragmatic outlook which on purely practical grounds
puts church unity above all else. Paul argues back to the fact of Christ, since he it
is upon whom the church is built and by whom it is sustained. A very good example
of this occurs in the introductory verses to the “Christ-hymn”’ of Phil. 2:6—11.
There is a lavish use of language in v. 2 to impress upon church members the need
for being “‘of one mind’’, then the motivation given in v. 5 ff. is that Christians are
in Christ, and are so by virtue of his life of self-abasement.
618
MIND
The translation and hence the interpretation of Phil. 2:5 is disputed; at first
sight the AV may appear convincing: ‘“‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in
Christ Jesus.’’ In that case, Christ’s self-abasement would be the model for a
similar attitude on the part of church members. The question is, however, whether
en Christo Iésou ought not to be regarded as a formula, as so often in Paul, for the
individual believer’s relationship to Christ: ‘““Have the same thoughts among
yourselves as you have in your communion with Christ Jesus’? (Arndt, 874; cf.
C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 19447, 64). If this is so,
then the call to unity would be based upon the fact that the — church possesses
new life under the — lordship of Christ (cf. vv. 10 f.), new life which springs from
his life of self-abasement. This interpretation is supported by Phil. 4:2, where
church members are required to be “‘of the same mind in the Lord [to auto phronein
en kyrio]’’. Here the phrase ‘“‘in the Lord”’ is presumably a formula for the believer’s
new life in Christ (cf. Arndt, 259; + Body). Among other passages where the
apostle calls for a harmonious attitude of mind, his prayer in Rom. 15:5 is note-
worthy for the grounds on which he bases it: he prays that God may grant to the
church to auto phronein kata Christon Tésoun, lit. “‘to think the same according to
Christ Jesus.’’ This means both “‘according to the pattern of Jesus Christ” (‘for
Christ did not please himself’’) (v. 3), and also ‘“‘according to the Spirit of Christ.”’
In other words, God has given to men the opportunity of achieving unity and
harmony in Christ. This would then be one of those passages supporting the state-
ment that in the NT, and particularly in Paul, attitude of mind is closely connected
with spiritual status: the believer’s new standing in Christ both creates and de-
mands a new mentality, which comes to concrete expression in the unity of the church.
5. Similar considerations underlie Paul’s injunction in Col. 3:2: “Set your minds
on things that are above, not on things that are on earth’’. Here ta ano (— heaven)
refers not to anything humanly exalted but to that heavenly sphere where the
exalted Christ exercises his lordship (cf. Col. 3:1). He frees his people from all that
would hold them down; contrast Phil. 3:19, where Paul accuses his opponents of
having their “‘minds set on earthly things [ta epigeia phronountes|’ and of making a
god out of their — “‘belly’’.
6. The adj. phronimos occurs 9 times in the Gospels and 5 times in Paul. The
adv. phronimos occurs only at Lk. 16:8.
(a) In the Gospels the words are confined to parables or figurative language, and
refer to that wise, judicious behaviour which should characterize those in the
kingdom of God. The examples are taken from everyday life, though occasionally
they are significantly exaggerated: the wise man builds his house on the rock
(Matt. 7:24); the five wise virgins have a supply of oil (Matt. 25:1 ff.); a wise and
faithful steward watches and is ready at the coming of his master (Matt. 24:45;
par. Lk. 12:42); the unrighteous steward acts wisely, for “‘the sons of this world
are wiser in their own generation than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8; on this parable
see J. D. M. Derrett, ““The Parable of the Unjust Steward’’, Law in the New Testa-
ment, 1970, 48-77; —> Possessions); and in Matt. 10:16 the wisdom of serpents is
held up as an example to Christ’s disciples. It has to be said, however, that the
wisdom which is presented to the disciples as being in keeping with the kingdom of
God is not just ordinary human common sense. Rather, the fact that phronimos is
contrasted with moros, foolish (— Wisdom, Folly, art. mdria), in the first two parables
619
MIND/MIRACLE
mentioned above (Matt. 7:26; 25:2 f., 8), shows that here the OT idea of wisdom
is involved: the wise man is he who does the will of the Lord (Matt. 7:24); the
foolish man is he who refuses obedience. Hence the idea behind phronimos in the
Gospels may be summarized thus: the believer’s wisdom lies in his obedience.
(b) The Pauline passages clearly arise from the slogan which seems to have been
in circulation among the ‘charismatic’? Corinthians: hémeis de phronimoi, “But
we are intelligent [or discerning]’’, a claim which Paul controverts in 1 Cor. 4:10;
cf.10:15; 2 Cor. 11:19. The wisdom claimed by such people was a purely human
wisdom, which because of their arrogance jeopardized the unity of the church (see
above NT 3, 4). Therefore, Paul counters it both with a reference to his own suffering
as an apostle (not without a touch of irony, e.g. 1 Cor. 4:10; 2 Cor. 11:19) and
with the warning, supported by the OT, that the man who regards himself as wise
falls under the judgment of God (Rom. 11:25; 12:16). —- Cross; — Wisdom, Folly.
7. Of all the words under discussion, phronésis comes nearest to the OT concept
of wisdom (see above OT; — Wisdom, art. sophia). In Eph. 1:9, where it stands
beside sophia, it means discernment, insight. In Lk. 1:17 it could mean simply
mental attitude, mentality, but the fact that it occurs in the combination phronésis
dikaion and in a context strongly reminiscent of the OT, suggests that the correct
translation is “‘the wisdom of the just”. Such wisdom, however, is not merely
rational discernment, but is the result of God’s people being turned to the obedience
of faith, in accordance with OT prophecy. J. Goetzmann
—> Empty (for discussion and literature on Phil. 2), -- Head, > Heart, — Humility,
—> Knowledge, — Reason, — Think, —- Wisdom
(a). G. Bertram, moros etc. TDNT IV 832-47 and phrén etc., TDNT IX 220-35; G. Bornkamm,
‘‘Faith and Reason in Paul’, and “‘On Understanding the Christ-hymn (Philippians 2.6—11)’’, in
Early Christian Experience, 1969, 29-46, 112-22; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I,
1952, 214; G. Fohrer and H. Wilckens, sophia etc., TDNT VII 465-528; W. Grundmann, tapeinos
etc., TDNT VIII 1-26; R. P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5—11 in Recent Interpretation and
in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, Society for New Testament Study Monograph Series, 4,
1967; C. F. D. Moule, “‘Further Reflections on Philippians 2:5-11; in W. W. Gasque and R. P.
Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel, Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F.
Bruce, 1970, 264-76; J. T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns, Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series 15, 1971, 58-74; E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, SBT
28, 1960.
(b). G. Braumann, Vorpaulinische christliche Taufverkiindigung bei Paulus, 1962, 56 ff.; A. Feuillet,
“L’hymne christologique de l’épitre aux Philippiens’, RB 72, 1965, 352 ff., 481 ff.; E. Fuchs,
Die Freiheit des Glaubens, 1949; D. Georgi, ‘‘Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil. 2,6—-11’’, in E.
Dinkler and H. Thyen, eds., Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburt-
stag, 1964, 263 ff.; J. Jeremias, ‘““Zur Gedankenfithrung in den paulinischen Briefen’’, in Studia
Paulina in Honorem J. de Zwaan, 1953, 146 ff. (reprinted in Abba, 1966, 269 ff.); E. Kasemann
‘‘Kritische Analyse von Phil. 2, 5-11”, in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, 1, 1960, 51 ff.;
E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus. Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5-11, (1928) 1961; Das Evangelium des
Markus, KEK 1/2, 1967""; and Der Brief an die Philipper, KEK 9/1 (1930) revised by W. Schmauch,
1953°: K. H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, NTD 3, 1952°; J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium
nach Markus, NTD 1, 1949°; and Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, NTD 2, 1968"; G. Strecker,
‘““Redaktion und Tradition im Christus-Hymnus Phil. 2, 6-11”, ZNW 55, 1964, 63-78.
Miracle, Wonder, Sign
Etymologically the words miracle and wonder refer to the astonishment and
620
MIRACLE
amazement, created by an unusual or inexplicable event. In a religious context such
an event is traced back to transcendent divine influence, but the unusual need not
necessarily contradict the normal laws of nature. However, Christian faith has from
the first attempted to understand and to interpret the happenings which have been
experienced. The astonishment and amazement felt when confronted by such a
spectacle or such an impression is rendered by the word-group thaumazo. teras
is a specifically religious concept stemming perhaps from mantology and — magic,
and throwing into relief the aspect of the extraordinary, and originally also the
aspect of terror in a miraculous sign. By contrast, the originally non-religious word
s€meion stresses more the functional aspect of an event as a sign which draws
attention (in the first instance visually) to the significance of an event. Only when
this condition is fulfilled can we properly speak of miracles. This aspect is one
which is frequently stressed when sémeion is combined with teras. The investigation
of the historicity of miracles lies outside the scope of this work, but details of
studies dealing with this aspect of the subject are given in the bibliography.
[ata Odavudla@ (thaumazo), be astonished, wonder at, be
surprised; Padua (thauma), object of wonder, wonder,
marvel, miracle; @avudaioc (thaumasios), wonderful, remarkable; @avuwaatoc
(thaumastos), wonderful, marvellous, astonishing; éx@avudl@ (ekthaumazo), be
greatly amazed; OayPéw (thambed), be astounded, amazed; éxOauBéw (ekthambeo),
be amazed, alarmed; é«@apfoc (ekthambos), utterly astonished; Odufoc (thambos),
astonishment, fear; QopvBém@ (thorybed), throw into disorder, pass. be troubled,
distressed; @dpvfoc (thorybos), commotion, uproar, turmoil; Oopvpataw
(thorybazo), cause trouble, pass. be troubled, distressed.
CL |. The word-group associated with thauma and thaumazo is found in Gk. from
the 8th and 7th cents., to designate that which by its appearance arouses as-
tonishment and amazement. The root is cognate with theaomai, to look at. The
reason for the amazement is expressed by the acc. in the trans. use of thaumazo, and
with prepositions (dia, en, peri) in the intrans. use.
apothaumazo (Sir. 11:13) and ekthaumaz6 (Sir. 27:23), to be greatly amazed,
are intensive compounds, The adjs. thaumastos and thaumasios take on particular
nuances in Biblical usage.
2. Synonymous with these is the word-group associated with thambos (Hom.
onwards), astonishment, dread (the latter meaning especially in LXX usage, cf.
Ezek. 7:18); and thambeo, frighten, be frightened (trans., 2 Sam. 22:5; intrans.
and pass., Wis. 17:13). The compound ekthambed, terrify (Sir. 30:9), and the adj.
ekthambos, terrifying, terrified (Dan. 7:7 Theodotion) are also intensive. Synony-
mous, too, is the group thorybos, commotion, uproar (Prov. 1:27); thorybeo, to
throw into disorder (Wis. 18:19), is used from the 6th and 5th cents. B.c. onwards.
Both word-groups are rare in biblical Gk. — Ecstasy; + Godliness; — Fear.
Examples of thaumazo as the human reaction to the working of a deity in the
revelation of its divine power can be seen extensively in the history of Gk.
religion, and are already to be found in the Homeric epics (e.g. Od. 1, 323; J/. 3,
398). From Hellenistic times mention may be made of Aelius Aristides (2nd cent.
A.D.), the orator and devout worshipper of Asclepius, who in his writings alludes
621
MIRACLE
to the marvellous (thaumastas) and powerful deeds of the god (G. Bertram, TDNT
III 28). These examples, of course, only give us a very slight idea of the significance
which thaumazo came to have in biblical writings.
oT In the LXX thauma appears only 4 times; 3 times in the phrase thauma echein
(= thaumazo), Job 17:8; 18:20; 21:5 (v.l. thaumasate); and also Job 20:8 as
v.l. for phasma, vision (Heb. hezyén). The vb. thaumazo occurs chiefly in Job, Isa.,
and Sir. thaumazo is often combined with prosopon, face; it means (like the Heb.
nasa’ panim) to lift up the countenance, show favour towards, be partial towards
(Prov. 18:5; Job 13:10); in Deut. 10:17 and 2 Chr. 19:7 it is expressly denied that
God as judge is partisan. In a more general sense it denotes a friendly disposition
which readily grants requests (e.g. Gen. 19:21, of God), a taking into consideration
(Deut. 28:50) and a being highly favoured (2 Ki. 5:1, pass.). In this kind of usage,
for which examples could be multiplied, the essential point is that the element of
fear is not included in thaumazo. It is different where thaumaz6 comes to stand for
the Heb. equivalent samam, be petrified with fear (Lev. 26:32; Job 17:8; 21:5;
Dan. 8:27 Theodotion, or tamdah, be astounded, horror-stricken (Ps. 48:6; Jer.
4:9; Heb. 1:5). The latter passages, in particular, show how the idea of astonish-
ment passes over to that of horror. The human reaction to God’s activity, which is
here depicted for us, is an astonishment mingled with fear and horror. One can
see the range of the word thaumazo in a comparison of Job 21:5 and 42:11 in the
LXX text; the sight of Job suffering and stricken by God arouses a terrified
astonishment (21:5), but astonishment is also caused by the marvellous help which
he receives from God (42:11). |
The adjs. thaumastos and thaumasios are found chiefly in the Pss. and Sir. The
Heb. equivalent for thaumastos is often nérda’, terrible: Daniel prays to the great
and marvellous, i.e. fear-inspiring, God (Dan. 9:4 Theodotion). Many similar
examples are found in the Pss.: God is marvellous, i.e. awe-inspiring amongst his
holy ones (Ps. 68[67]:36); he is marvellous in the execution of his decrees (Ps.
45[44]:5). thaumastos stands chiefly for words formed from Heb. nip/a’ét (cf. the
vb. pala’, to be extra-ordinary, or marvellous): in Ps. 106[105]:22 where the marvel-
lous and terrible acts of God (in “‘the land of Ham” and at the Red Sea) are com-
pared; and in Ps. 118[117]:23 where that event is described as marvellous which in
the NT is applied to Christ: the stone which the builders rejected has become the
cornerstone (cf. Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10 f.; Lk. 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7). With
the adj. thaumasios the Heb. equivalents are again words formed from pdld’ (oc-
casionally occurring with thaumastos). thaumasia is the regular designation for the
marvellous acts of God, which it is one of the Psalmists’ basic concerns to proclaim
and praise. These marvellous acts embrace all God’s activity in creation and history
(cf. Pss. 9:2; 26[25]:7; 71[70]:17; 86[85]:10). The praise of the Psalmists is con-
tinued in the book of Jesus Sirach, Ecclesiasticus (cf. Sir. 18:6; 38:6; 42:17; 48:14).
Even the stars, the sun and the moon are included in this paean of praise (Sir.
43:2, 8).
In later Judaism the hymn-roll, or Hodayot, of the Dead Sea Scrolls took up the
praise of the marvellous acts of God (cf. 1QH 1:30, 33; 3:23; 4:28, 29; 6:11).
NT 1. In the NT the noun thauma is found only twice; once in the phrase ou
thauma, “it is no wonder” (2 Cor. 11:14), which is borrowed from Hellenistic
622
MIRACLE
diatribe (H. Windisch, KEK 9, 1924, ad loc.); then in the formulation in Rev. 17:6
ethaumasa ... thauma mega, “I was greatly astonished’’. thaumasios is found only
in Matt. 21:15 for the miraculous deeds of Jesus. The adj. thaumastos occurs 7
times: twice (Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:11) in the quotation of Ps. 118:23 concerning
the corner stone which the builders rejected, which is applied to Jesus (cf. above
OT; — Rock, Stone, Corner Stone). In 1 Pet. 2:9 the light to which God has called
Christians is called thaumaston, and its relationship to the divine sphere thus stated
(Ps. 68:36, see above oT). In Jn. 9:30 the man healed by Jesus describes as “‘aston-
ishing’’, ‘“‘a marvel’ (RSV), the attitude of the Jews who refuse to acknowledge
where Jesus has come from. For Rev. 15:1, 3 see below, 6.
thaumazo is the word that occurs most frequently (42 times). In the Synoptic
Gospels 25 certain examples are found (including the variant exethaumazon in
Mk. 12:17), of which 13 are in Lk. Jn. offers 6 instances. The word comes 5 times
in Acts, 4 times in the NT letters, and the same number of times in Rev.
The word-group containing thambos (astonishment, fear, Lk. 4:36; 5:9; Acts
3:10), thambed (be astounded, Mk. 1:27; 10:24, 32; Acts3:11 D; 9:6 TR),
ekthambos (utterly astonished, Acts 3:11), and ekthambeo (be amazed, alarmed,
Mk. 9:15; 14:33; 16:5 f.) is comparatively rare in the NT. There is a similar
number of instances of thorybos, noise, clamour, turmoil (Matt. 26:5; 27:24; Mk.
5:38; 14:2; Acts 20:1; 21:34; 24:18), and thorybeo, throw into disorder (Acts
17:5; 21:13 D), pass. be troubled, distressed, in disorder (Matt. 9:23; Mk. 5:39).
Matt. 26:5; 27:24 and Mk. 14:2 are concerned with disturbances in the nation
which could arise from action taken against Jesus, and of which the chief priests
and Pilate are afraid. Matt. 9:23 and Mk. 5:38 f. report of the din in the house of
Jairus which followed the death of his little girl. According to Acts 17:5, the Jews
in Thessalonica threw the town into an uproar in order to disrupt Paul’s missionary
work. In Acts 20:1 thorybos denoted the silversmiths’ riot in Ephesus (Acts 19: 23 ff.),
and in 21:34 the riot amongst the people of Jerusalem (Acts 21:30 ff.) which led to
Paul’s imprisonment. The vb. and noun are also used in a similar sense in Acts
20:10 and 24:18.
2. In the Synoptic accounts thaumazo describes the impression which men get of
Jesus’ healing activity and miraculous power, such as in the case of the healing of
the Gerasene demoniac (Mk. 5:20), the cursing of the fig-tree (Matt. 26:20; —
Fruit, art. syké), and the healing of a dumb demoniac (Matt. 9:33; Lk. 11:14).
In Matt. the impression is put into words: “such a thing has never before been seen
in Israel!’ In the transmission of the story of the storm on the sea it is noticeable
how closely astonishment and —> fear belong together: Matt. speaks of astonish-
ment (8:27), Mk. of being afraid (4:41), and Lk. combines both (8:25). Terror
and astonishment are similarly juxtaposed in Lk. 9:43. The reaction of astonish-
ment to Jesus’ miraculous deeds is mentioned in a summarizing account in Matt.
15:31; the Marcan par. 7:37 speaks of terror.
If thaumazo includes an element of fear, Lk. 11:38 perhaps constitutes an ex-
ception. This speaks of the —> Pharisees’ amazement at Jesus’ disregard for the
Jewish purificatory prescriptions. Otherwise, however, thaumazo and thambeo or
ekpléssesthai are closely related in the Gospels. ekpléssesthai is also related to the
word of Jesus: ““They took fright at his teaching’”’ (Matt. 7:29 par. Mk. 1:22, Lk.
4:32; Matt. 19:25, par. Mk. 10:26; Mk. 11:18; Matt. 22:33), rendering impossible
623
MIRACLE
any clear division between his acts and teaching (cf. Mk. 1:27). Jesus speaks as
one who abolishes all otherwise valid criteria. Both Mk. and Lk. use thambeisthai
or thambos (Mk. 1:27; Lk. 4:36; cf. thambos in Lk. 5:9, the account of the miracu-
lous catch of fish).
Jesus’ appearance in Nazareth seems to be depicted rather differently by Lk.:
‘All spoke well of him and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out
of his mouth” (Lk. 4:22a). But this did not stop the same people from trying to
kill Jesus (4:29). Mk. reports only briefly the astonished alarm (6:2), which is the
effect of Jesus’ sovereign majesty. According to Mk. 9:15, even the sight of Jesus
was enough to produce ekthambeisthai. On the way to Jerusalem Jesus’ followers
were filled with fear and astonishment (10:32). Hence, it must be asked whether the
amazement to which Jesus’ discussion with the — Pharisees gave rise, when they
questioned him concerning the tax for the emperor, may not have contained an
element of fear (Matt. 22:22 par. Mk. 12:17, Lk. 20:26). Such amazement, of
course, in no way presupposes faith, though it may well presuppose an inkling of the
presence of divine authority. Do the evangelists also postulate such a premonition
on the part of Pilate, of whom they record that he was amazed that Jesus did not
defend himself against his accusers (Matt. 27:14; Mk. 15:5), or that he was astoun-
ded by Jesus’ speedy death (Mk. 15:44)?
There are two reports of Jesus’ being surprised: at the faith of the centurion at
Capernaum (Matt. 8:10; Lk. 7:9) and at the unbelief of the people in Nazareth
(Mk. 6:6). A case of Jesus’ ekthambeisthai, being frightened, is transmitted to us
in the scene in Gethsemane (Mk. 14:33).
In Luke’s infancy narrative (chs. 1 and 2) a thaumazein is spoken of 4 times.
Zechariah’s long delay in the temple, together with his loss of speech, caused the
people surprise (1:21 f.); they took it as an indication that something extraordinary
had happened, and that he had seen a vision. The same is true of the + name given
to John the Baptist which his father could not utter and which evoked astonish-
ment from the people (1:63). The Christmas message of the shepherds aroused
amazement (2:18), as did the encounter of Jesus’ parents with Simeon, and his
words in the temple (2:33). The whole event has an air about it which caused men
to marvel. The Lucan Easter narrative uses the word in two places. In Lk. 24:12
Peter ran to Jesus’ grave in-response to the message of the women and found it
empty. Whereupon he returned home, amazed at what had happened. (The verse is
absent from important textual witnesses, and its originality is admittedly not
guaranteed. It is, however, supported by Metzger, 184.) Lk. depicts in 24:41 how
the disciples were unable to believe for joy and astonishment, when Jesus appeared
to them. The fact that the sight of the risen Lord aroused fear has already been
stated in v. 37 (cf. the hint in Jn. 21:12). But the Easter joy was not mitigated by it
(Matt. 28:8; Lk. 24:41; Jn. 20:20). The appearance of the — angels at the grave
was also frightening (ekthambeisthai twice in Mk. 16:5, 6; cf. also Matt. 28:3, 5).
3. In the Fourth Gospel thaumazein is rarely used to denote human reaction to
Jesus’ attitudes and behaviour. In reply to the expressed amazement that Jesus
possesses knowledge of scripture without having received instruction in it
(7:15), he replied (7:16) by pointing out that his teaching comes from the Father
who has sent him. In 7:21 Jesus drew the attention of the Jews to the fact that they
are surprised (thaumazete) and annoyed by a work which he has performed on the
624
MIRACLE
— Sabbath (7:23), whereas for the sake of circumcision they would regularly
break the Sabbath. Jesus’ — works will inevitably provoke astonishment, “‘For
the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater
works than these will he show him, that you may marvel” (5:20). To Nicodemus
Jesus directed the challenge mé thaumasés: “‘do not be surprised!”’ (3:7 JB; cf.
Eccl. 5:7). Nicodemus is not to take offence at the initially unintelligible language
concerning the new — birth (art. palingenesia), about which he can only ask:
‘“‘How can that be possible?” (v. 9 JB): he is to open his heart to it in faith.
The formula mé thaumasés is also found in 5:28 f. (the listeners are not to be sur-
prised at Jesus’ language about the — resurrection of the dead to — life and to
—> judgment, with which they must come to terms), and 1 Jn. 3:13 (here it is the
hatred of the world, which Christians are not to be surprised at when they meet it,
because it is the offence with which they will have to be able to cope).
4. According to Acts 2:7, when the Spirit was poured out, the assembled crowd
of Jews were bewildered with astonishment. Terrified astonishment is the reaction
of the people to the healing of the lame man (thambos kai ekstasis, “wonder and
amazement’’, 3:10; cf. v. 12 ti thaumazete, ‘““why do you wonder ?’’). For the high
priests the object of astonishment is the boldness of Peter and John and the fact
that they were “uneducated, common men” (4:13). Elsewhere the term occurs in
Acts when OT stories are related (7:31; cf. Dan. 8:27) or quoted (13:41; cf. Hab.
1:5). The question may be asked whether the relative frequency of the word
thaumazo in the Lucan writings is connected with the proximity of his style to the
language of the LXX.
5. From among the NT epistles (apart from 2 Cor. 11:14, cf. above 1) two
Pauline passages require mention. In Gal. 1:6 the apostle expresses his amazement
that the Galatians have so quickly allowed themselves to be won over to another >
gospel; this leads into Paul’s debate concerning the Galatian teachers of false
doctrine. 2 Thess. 1:10 uses thaumazo in an eschatological context: the Lord will
come in order to be glorified among his saints (Ps. 68[67]:36) and to be marvelled
at among those who believe in him (the pass. thaumasthénai is not rare in the LXX
[cf. 2 Ki. 5:1; Isa. 61:6]). In Jude 16 the language is Jewish-Christian, expressing
in the manner of the LXX the partiality shown to people (thaumazontes prosépa).
On 1 Jn. 3:13 cf. NT 3, above.
6. In Rev. thaumazo occurs 4 times in 13:3 and 17:6 ff. Rev. 13:1 ff. reports
that at the emergence of the beast (— Animal, art. thérion) from the sea, the
embodiment of the anti-Christian power, “the whole earth had followed the
beast with astonishment” (v. 3). This astonishment leads to adoration of the beast
and of the power behind him, the — dragon. The astonishment in 17:8 also
refers to this adoration. The model for the apocalyptic picture was the cult of the
Roman Caesars. The astonishment of the seer in 17:7 is different; this concerns
the mystery of — “Babylon the great’’, which is — drunk with the — blood of the
saints and of the witnesses of Jesus (vv. 5, 6). Further, Rev. 15:1 speaks of a great
and marvellous (thaumaston) sign (— sémeion). The seer sees seven angels bringing
the seven final plagues in which the divine judgment of wrath is consummated.
But before this event of terror comes to pass, the seer catches a glimpse of the
multitude who have conquered and who sing the song of — Moses and the —
Lamb (15:2). In this song there resounds the song of praise of the great and
625
MIRACLE
marvellous (thaumasta) works of God (—» Work; — Earth), which the devout
men of the old covenant praised (15:3). W. Mundle
Onéeiov aoneiov (sémeion), sign, wonder, miracle.
CL sémeion, attested from Aesch. and Hdt. onwards, is a derivation from séma,
sign, a word common in early Gk. epic and synonymous with sémeion, but one
whose etymology has not yet been satisfactorily clarified. The word does not
originally come from the sphere of religion, but it takes on theological colouring in
appropriate contexts.
1. The basic meaning of sémeion is a sign (as a rule, visually perceived, but
occasionally also heard) by which one recognizes a particular person or thing, a
confirmatory, corroborative, authenticating mark or token. Of the variety of
nuances in meaning (see K. H. Rengstorf, 7DNT VII 204-7) mention may be made
of the foretoken or omen, which announced coming events. As distinct from —
teras, sémeion and its older form séma do not necessarily have the character of the
miraculous. Also — and again differently from teras — “‘its reference is to disclosure
as the indispensable presupposition of all knowledge’ (TDNT VII 204),
without requiring explanation or interpretation.
2. When a sémeion does have the character of the marvellous, the word acquires
the meaning of “‘miraculous sign’’. It can then denote in general a miracle worked
by the divinity or a miracle-worker which contradicts the natural course of things.
This meaning is also found in the phrase sémeia kai terata, “‘signs and wonders’’,
first attested in Polyb. 3, 112, 18 in the 2nd cent. B.c.
oT 1. In the LXX sémeion is predominantly a translation of the Heb. word ’6t,
and, like it, means: (a) sign, mark, token; (b) miraculous sign, miracle.
(a) Whether directly or by authorized men, whether unrequested (e.g. 1 Sam.
10:1 ff.) or in answer to prayer (e.g. Jdg. 6:17, 36 f.), Yahweh grants and works
signs, which accompany his word and vouch for its validity and reliability. Thus
the sign of Cain (Gen. 4:15) vouches for the promise of divine protection, the
blood on the houses of the Israelites (Exod. 12:13) vouches for the promised
exemption. As the rainbow guarantees God’s —> covenant promise (Gen. 9:8 ff.),
so —> circumcision (Gen. 17:11) and — Sabbath (Exod. 31:13, 17) are also “signs
of the covenant’’, which express and seal the particular relationship between Yah-
weh and Israel. Signs which reinforce the promise of the saving presence of Yahweh
are spoken of in Exod. 3:12; Jdg. 6:16 ff., 36 ff.; 1 Sam. 10:1 ff.; and Isa. 7:10 ff.
Yahweh’s messengers can authenticate their mission and message by signs per-
formed (Exod. 4:1 ff.) or predicted (1 Sam. 10:1 ff.; 1 Ki. 13:1 ff.; 2 Ka. 19:29).
The symbolic actions of the prophets are a way of making visible the word of
God (1 Ki. 11:29 ff.; Isa. 8:1 ff.; 20:1 ff.; Jer. 19:1 ff.; 27:1 ff.; 32:6 ff.; Ezek.
4-5; 24:15 ff.; Hos. 1-3). They are not simply pictorial illustrations of the oral
proclamation, but, like the prophetic word itself (cf. Isa. 55:10 f.), tokens of the
power which shapes history. The prior representation of that which is coming
sets the realization of the thing designated creatively in motion. ‘““The prophetic
symbolic act is simply an intensified form of prophetic speech’ (G. von Rad,
626
MIRACLE
Old Testament Theology, II, 1965, 96). Even the prophet, as a witness of the message,
can himself become a “sign” (Isa. 8:18; Ezek. 12:3 ff., 17 ff.; 21:11 f.; 24:24, 27).
(b) Alongside such signs, which are either quite ordinary incidents or ones where
the aspect of the marvellous does not lie in the sign itself but in the prophetic
prediction (e.g. | Sam. 10:1 ff.; and the announcement in Isa. 7:14 ff. that the
child will be a son, — God, art. Emmanouél), there are others which possess a
thoroughly miraculous character. In this category belong the signs worked by
Moses, for example (Exod. 4; 7-12; 14; 17; Deut. 34:11) and those granted to
Gideon (Jdg. 6) and Hezekiah (2 Ki. 20:8 ff.; cf. Isa. 38:7 ff.). In the sense of a
miraculous sign ’6¢ and sémeion are closely linked with mdépét and teras. The phrase
'OL6t imdp*tim = sémeia kai terata, signs and wonders (where the original distinc-
tion between the two terms can no longer be felt), is found primarily in those texts
which describe the time of Moses as a time of Yahweh’s marvellous action in
history (Exod. 7:3; cf. Deut. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 29:2; Jer. 32:20 f.; Ps. 78[77]:43;
105[104]:27; 135{134]:9; Neh. 9:10; also Bar. 2:11; Wis. 10:16). Moreover, there
are numerous miracles witnessed to in the OT, which God works directly or
through charismatic figures (e.g. Gen. 17:17; 18:11; Jos. 3; 6; 10; 1 Ki. 17f.; 2
Ki. 6 f.). Such signs are considered to be extraordinary occurrences, but not
unnatural, since the OT does not know of a natural law as an independent entity
on a level with Yahweh. Every event goes back to God, nothing is impossible for
him (Gen. 18:14). All signs are pointers to Yahweh himself, a revelation of his
— might, and — glory. In them — Israel — indeed, all the nations of the world —
are to encounter Yahweh and to recognize that he alone is God (cf. Deut. 4:35;
1] Ki. 18:36 ff.; Ps. 86[85]:10). Since the ultimate goal of signs is the universal
glorification of the divine — name (Ps. 72[71]:18 f.), unbelief and disobedience in
the face of the demonstrative experience of signs are regarded as the expression
of an utterly incomprehensible hardness of heart (Num. 14:11, 22; Ps. 78[77];
95[94]:8 ff.). O. Hofius
(c) In point of fact, miraculous signs are not uniformly distributed throughout
the OT. They are largely grouped in three main periods, each of which was marked
by a life-and-death struggle for the people of God and which put Yahweh’s saving
power and will to the proof. These periods were: (i) The redemption of the people
of God from — Egypt and their establishment in Canaan; (ii) the conflict with
pagan religion under — Elijah and Elisha; (ii1) the time of Daniel during the exile
when the supremacy of Yahweh and the faithfulness of Daniel and his companions
were vindicated. The common feature of these periods is the extremity of the people
of God which is answered by Yahweh’s action in abnormal events which are in
themselves saving acts and at the same time pointers to an even greater salvation.
The same could be said for the fourth period of miraculous signs, the coming of
Jesus and the gospel age.
Outside these periods miracles are rare. Possible instances are the so-called
translation of Enoch (Gen. 5:24; cf. Heb. 11:5) and the birth of Isaac to — Abra-
ham and Sarah despite their advanced age (Gen. 21:1 ff.). With regard to Enoch,
the Bible itself does not engage in the speculations of Wis. 4:10 ff. and various
books of Enoch. The text need imply no more than that he was taken to the direct
presence of God at the end of his life. (On Enoch in intertestamental literature see
627
MIRACLE
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC 1964, 286-89; ODCC, 459 f.) The
prolonged childlessness of Abraham and Sarah may have been due to the fact that
Sarah was Abraham’s step-sister (Gen. 20:12). The birth of Isaac was miraculous
in the sense that it was deemed beyond the normal course of nature.
Many of the other miraculous events in the OT did not involve suspension of
natural causes. The locusts which plagued Egypt were blown there by a strong
east wind and were blown away by a strong west wind (Exod. 10:13, 19). The
arrival of the quails coincided with the spring migration (Exod. 16:13). On the
manna which may have attracted the quails — Bread, art. manna. The parting of
the Red Sea was caused by “‘a strong east wind” blowing all night (Exod. 14:21). In
such instances the event is a providential ordering of natural causes for the benefit
of the people of God. Similarly, the fire falling on the sacrifice of Elijah on Mount
Carmel (1 Ki. 18:38) was probably a thunderbolt. In the cases of the healing of
Naaman (2 Ki. 5) and the restoration to life of children (1 Ki. 17:17-24; 2 Ki. 4:18-
37) we have instances of paranormal healings beyond normal medical explanation.
The long day in Joshua 10 may well be a poetic description of the invigoration of
Joshua’s soldiers. Alternatively it has been explained as an abnormal refraction of
the rays of the sun and moon and as a supernaturally induced thunderstorm giving
the men relief from the burning heat (cf. B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science
and Scripture, 1955, 107-10). The sun dial of Ahaz (Isa. 38; 2 Ki. 20) was probably
a series of steps (cf. Josephus, Ant. 10, 2, 1). The return of the shadow ten degrees
may have been due to the Shekinah Glory which lighted up the steps (A. S. D.
Maunder, ‘““The Shadow Returning on the Dial of Ahaz’’, Journal of the Transac-
tions of the Victoria Institute 64, 1932, 83-92; for further discussion see B. Ramm,
op. cit., 110 ff.). In the case of 2 Ki. 6:5 ff., John Gray comments, “‘The factual
basis of the ‘miracle’ of the floating axe-head may be that Elisha with a long pole
or stick probed about the spot indicated (an important point in the text) until he
succeeded either in inserting the stick into the socket, or, having located the hard
object on the muddy bottom, moved it until the man was able to recover it” U & I
Kings, 1964, 460). It may be noted that the text itself does not call the event a
miracle or even a sign. Nevertheless, the event was evidently remembered as indica-
tive of Yahweh’s providential help.
The view that one takes of Daniel in the fiery furnace and the lions’ den (Dn.
3 and 6) will depend on the view that one takes of the Book of Daniel as a whole.
Many scholars place the book in the Maccabean period and see it as a work written
to encourage pious Jews to withstand the attacks on their religion by Antiochus
Epiphanes. The stories then might have a didactic value, but little basis in historical
reality. Alternatively, they might be a figurative, stylized way of describing some
historical event. On the other hand, the book itself is set in the exilic period. The
furnace may be thought of as the kilns of the period used for baking bricks or
smelting metals (cf. K. A. Kitchen, “Brick-Kiln’, NBD, 168; T. C. Mitchell,
“Furnace”, NBD, 443; J. B. Alexander, ““New Light on the Fiery Furnace’, JBL
69, 1950, 375 f.). A sudden gust of flame or explosion killed the men who brought
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego down to where the kilns were.(Dn. 3:22), but
the latter survived their ordeal possibly protected by their clothing mentioned in
the narrative. In the case of the lions, a spiritual presence inhibited the lions from
attacking Daniel (Dn. 6:22). For various interpretations of the Book of Daniel
628
MIRACLE
see J. A. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, ICC, 1927; E. W. Heaton, The Book
of Daniel, 1956; N. Porteous, Daniel: A Commentary, 1965; E. J. Young, The
Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 1949; and the specialist literature referred to
in these books. C. Brown
2. According to Exod. 7 f., the Egyptian magicians had the power to perform
miracles by secret magical arts, but they are inferior to the miracles of Yahweh
(— Magic). In Deut. 13:2 ff. the false prophet who wishes to seduce Israel to
apostasy from Yahweh is attributed the power to perform signs and wonders.
These are recognized to be opposed to God in that the word that they are intended
to authenticate brings separation from him instead of binding one to him. Hence
even though a prophet may perform such signs, he is to be tested by his teaching.
If his teaching would lead to other gods, he is to be rejected.
3. The meaning of the apocalyptic sign of the end, portent, which — teras has
in Joel 2:30 (LXX 3:3), is not attested for sémeion in the LXX, but it is found in 2
Esd. 4:51 f.; 6:11 f.; 8:63, where the Lat. signum goes back to the Gk. sémeion. In
Sib. 3:796 ff. the older séma is used. The signs of the end are partly concerned with
horrible and frightening portents, which indicate that the last days are dawning.
In so far as these portents are convulsions of a cosmic nature, they announce the
transformation of the world — the dissolution of the old — creation and the re-
constitution of the whole of — nature. On the interpretation of the cosmic
language of Joel in the NT and the cosmic language of prophecy —> Generation,
art. genea NT 4; — Pentecost; — Fullness, art. plérod nT 1.
4. In Rabbinic literature, where ’6¢ (and more rarely simadn = sémeion) has the
meaning, amongst others, of miraculous sign or miracle, God’s miracles, the
miraculous working of great men of God and of the Rabbis, and also miracles of
the messianic age are frequently spoken of (see the index in SB IV 1277). According
to the Rabbinic conception, a prophet has to prove his identity by means of signs
and wonders (cf. SB 1 726 ff.; II 480; cf. Matt. 16:1; Jn. 6:30; and also Jn. 3:2).
Miracles are equally regarded as divine confirmatory signs for the proclamation of
a Rabbi (SB I 127; IV 318 f.).
NT sémeion is found 77 times in the NT, predominantly in the Gospels (48 times)
and Acts (13 times), but also in Paul (8 times), Heb. (once) and Rev. (7 times).
In the other literature the term is entirely lacking. The linguistic usage of the LXX
is adopted: sémeion means: (1) sign, mark (Matt. 26:48; 2 Thess. 3:17), token
(Lk. 2:12); (2) miraculous sign, miracle (Jn. 2:11; 18, 23 et passim; Acts 4:16, 22;
8:6; 1 Cor. 1:22). The phrase sémeia kai terata, signs and wonders, occurs many
times (Matt. 24:24 par. Mk. 13:22; Jn. 4:48; Acts 2:19 [Joel 2:30], 22, 43 [cf. 5:12;
14:3]; 4:30; 6:8; 7:36; 15:12; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; 2 Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4).
The apocalyptic meaning of sign of the end (see above oT 3) is found, e.g., in
Mk. 13:4; Matt. 24:3; Lk. 21:11, 15 f.
1. It is the OT conception of the — prophet as Yahweh’s sign that underlies
Jesus’ being the God-given sign (Lk. 2:34), by which the rise or fall, the salvation
or ruin of every man is decided. In this connection we also have Jesus’ rejection of
the demand for signs (Matt. 16:1 par. Mk. 8:11, Lk. 11:16), which is linked in
Matt. 12:38 ff.; 16:1 ff., Lk. 11:16, 29 ff. with the mention — although its interpre-
tation is disputed (cf. TDNT III 406-10) — of the sign of — Jonah. Jesus unmasks
629
MIRACLE
the demand for signs as a subterfuge concealing a refusal to repent. Anyone who
does not believe the final word of God going forth in him will not be brought to
repentance even by miracles (cf. Lk. 16:27 ff.). The only sign which God will give
to the unrepentant — generation is God’s representative who will be shown to be
such by his deliverance from death. As once Jonah came back from the dead, so
at his parousia (— Present, art. parousia) the Son of man will come in — judg-
ment (cf. Matt. 24:30; — Son, art. hyios tou anthrépou). The parabolic actions of
Jesus which betoken the dawn of the age of salvation (e.g. Mk. 2:18 ff.; 3:13 ff.;
Matt. 2:1 ff., 12 ff.) are to be compared with the prophetic symbolic actions of the
OT. Thus, Jesus’ table-fellowship with sinners (Lk. 5:29 f.; Matt. 9:9-13; Mk.
2:13-17; 15:1 ff., 19:7) is a prophetic sign, a valid anticipation of the acquittal of
the final judgment, and a practical illustration in advance of the messianic meal in
the age of salvation.
2. Alongside the miracles performed by God himself (e.g. Acts 5:19; 12:3 ff.;
16:25 ff.) one can also distinguish in the NT: (a) the miracles of Jesus; (b) the
miracles of his witnesses; and (c) the miraculous power of elements hostile to God.
(a) The Gospels record numerous healing miracles of Jesus (e.g. the healing of
those possessed by evil spirits, — lepers, — blind — lame, — deaf-mutes (—
Demon; — Heal), three instances of people being raised from the dead (Jairus’
daughter, Matt. 9:18-26; Mk. 5:21-43; Lk. 8:40-56; the widow of Nain’s son,
Lk. 7:11-17; and Lazarus, Jn. 11; cf. the raisings in 1 Ki. 17:17-24; 2 Ki. 4:32-
37), and eight so-called nature miracles (the stilling of the storm, Matt. 8:18, 23-37,
Mk. 4:35-41, Lk. 8:22-25; the feeding of the five thousand, Matt. 14:13-21, Mk.
6:32-14; Lk. 9:11-17; Jn. 6:5-13; the feeding of the four thousand, Matt. 15:32-
39, Mk. 8:1-10; the walking on the water, Matt. 14:22~-33, Mk. 6:45-52, Jn.
6:15—21; the cursing of the fig tree, Matt. 21:18 f., Mk. 8:12 ff., cf. Lk. 13:6-9 (>
Fruit, art. syké); the coin in the fish’s mouth, Matt. 17:24-27; the draught of fishes,
Lk. 5:1-11; cf. Jn. 21:1-19; and the water into wine, Jn. 2:1 ff.). Critical sifting of
this material has led some scholars to conclude that some of these narratives contain
reduplication (e.g. the feeding of the four and five thousand, cf. J. Jeremias, New
Testament Theology, I, 1971, 86 ff.). But it also confirms the presentation of the
Synoptic Gospels, where the essential characteristic of the effective work of Jesus
is seen in the combination of proclamation and healing work (cf. Mk. 1:38 f.;
Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Lk. 9:11; cf. also Jesus’ testimony to himself in Lk. 13:32, and
the juxtaposition of seeing and hearing in the Jogion Matt. 13:16 f. par. Lk. 10:23 f.
[cf. Jn. 8:56; Heb. 11:13; 1 Pet. 1:10 ff.; Isa. 6:9 f.]).
There also exist accounts of miracles of Jewish and pagan miracle-workers of
antiquity (on this see C. F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their
Philosophy and History, 1965; H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 1965, 139-
50). A comparison of these accounts with those of the Gospels shows that the NT
miracle traditions have adopted certain narrative forms and motifs from their
milieu, but also draws attention to the particularities of the Gospel witness. With
Jesus — magic, conjuration, cursing of people and spells are all absent. He per-
formed miracles by his authoritative — word, to which can be added a gesture (e.g.
Mk. 1:31, 41; 5:41; Matt. 9:29). Jesus carried out no miracles of punishment (cf.
Lk. 9:51 ff. with 2 Ki. 1:10 ff.). He declined to perform miracles in order to rescue
himself (Matt. 4:1 ff. par. Lk. 4:1-4; 26:51 ff.; 27:39 ff. par. Mk. 15:29 ff.; Lk.
630
MIRACLE
23:35), and rejected demonstrations of power designed to prove his divine sending
(Matt. 4:5 ff. par. Lk. 4:9-12; Matt. 16:1-4 par. Mk. 8:11 f.; Lk. 11:29). Jesus
forbade those whom he had healed to relate his miracles to others (e.g. Matt. 8:30;
Mk. 5:43; 7:36; Lk. 8:56); in the case of the healed lepers the man was to show
himself ‘‘to the priest, and offer what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people”’
(Mk. 1:44; cf. Lev. 13:49; 14:2-22; Matt. 8:2-4; Lk. 5:12-16; this suggests that
Jesus was not only fulfilling the law but directing his work in the first instance to the
priests). It is not personal gain but thanks to God that Jesus looked for in men who
have known his miraculous help (Lk. 17:11 ff.). By and large the accounts pay little
attention to the miraculous process as such; they concentrate on the encounter of
Jesus with the whole man in his physical and spiritual needs. The case of the
Gadarene swine (Matt. 8 : 28-34; Mk.5:1-17; Lk. 8: 26-37) illustrates not only some-
thing of the nature of demon possession but also the preference of the people of those
parts for their swine (in any case unclean — animals) to the healing presence of
Jesus. In Matt. 9:2-8 par. Mk. 2:3-12, Lk. 5:18-26 — forgiveness of sins is linked
with the healing. Healing becomes a turning point in the life of the healed person
(cf. Matt.9:32; 20:34; Mk.5:18 ff.; 10:52; Lk. 18:43). Anyone who experiences a
miracle of Jesus is thereby placed on the road of — discipleship, in the same way
that miracles in general are related to — faith. Only faith, i.e. trust in the power of
Jesus which transcends all human possibilities, can receive miracles (Mk. 2:5;
5:34; 7:29; 9:23 f.; Matt. 8:10; 9:28 f.; cf. Jn. 4:50; 11:40); unbelief is denied
miracles (Matt. 13:53-58; Mk. 6:1-6; cf. Lk. 4:16—-30). It is noteworthy that Jesus’
miracles presuppose — faith, they do not first create it. Miracles are not proofs
which silence all opposition: if the believer sees God at work, the verdict of his
opponents is that Jesus is in league with — Satan (Matt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22; Lk.
11:15).
What finally and radically distinguishes Jesus’ miracles from those of Jewish
and Hellenistic narratives is their eschatological reference. As Matt. 11:2 ff. par.
Lk. 7:18 ff. and Lk. 11:20 clearly show, they are signs of God’s kingly rule, the
dawn of which Jesus announced in his — proclamation (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mk.
1:39; 6:6; Lk. 4:14 f., 44). Jesus’ words and works are the beginning of the age of
salvation, and the miracles are a foreshadowing and a promise of the coming
universal redemption. Ultimately, it is in this eschatological context that the
accounts of Jesus’ miracles are to be read. Thus, the casting out of demons signals
God’s invasion into the realm of Satan and its final annihilation (Matt. 12:29 par.
Mk. 3:27, Lk. 11:21 f., cf. Isa. 49:24 f.; Lk. 10:18; Jn. 12:31; Rev. 20:1 ff., 10);
the raising of the dead announces that death will be forever done away with (1
Cor. 15:26; Rev. 21:4; cf. Isa. 25:8); the healing of the sick bears witness to the
cessation of all suffering (Rev. 21:4); the miraculous provisions of food are fore-
tokens of the end of all physical need (Rev. 7:16 f.); the stilling of the storm points
forward to complete victory over the powers of chaos which threaten the earth
(Rev. 21:1). ““When the biblical miracle stories excite serious and relevant wonder-
ment, they intend to do this as signals of something fundamentally new, not as a
violation of the natural order which is generally known and acknowledged....
Though these changes were isolated and temporary, they were nevertheless radic-
ally helpful and saving. What took. place were promises and intimations, anticipa-
tions of a redeemed nature, of a state of freedom, of a kind of life in which there
631
MIRACLE
will be no more sorrow, tears, and crying, and where death as the last enemy
will be no more” (Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, 1963, 68 f.).
The eschatological reference of Jesus’ miracles is also expressed in its particular
way by John’s Gospel. For a redaction-critical approach see R. T. Fortna, The
Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth
Gospel, 1970. The Gospel itself stresses the historical reality of the events. At the
same time the miracles are understood as signs pointing beyond themselves to the
One who performs them. They prove Jesus’ identity as the Christ of God (20:30),
who brings the fullness of eschatological salvation (2:1 ff.; wine is already a
symbol of the age of salvation in the OT, cf. Isa. 25:6; — Vine), and offers the
—> bread of life (6:1 ff.), grants resurrection and eternal life (11:1 ff.; cf. also
4:47 ff.; 5:1 ff.) and drives out darkness (9:1 ff.). In the miracles Jesus reveals his
— glory (2:11; 11:4), which is the glory of God himself (1:14). Admittedly, the
miracles have this power of statement only for those whose eyes God himself opens
(12:37 ff.; cf. Isa. 6:1, 10; 53:1), so that in faith they become aware of the glory of
Jesus (2:11; 11:40). Unenlightened men, by contrast, react to Jesus’ miracles with
sham faith (2:23 ff.) or unbelief (12:37—43; cf. Isa. 53:1; 6:1, 10).
The NT witnesses agree that the uniqueness of Jesus is also expressed in the
miracles — his compassionate love as well as his divine authority (cf. also Acts
10:38). ‘““He has done all things well’? (Mk. 7:37). In him God himself “‘has visited
his people” (Lk. 7:16). This is the pledge and promise of the consummation of
salvation described in Rev. 21:1 ff.
(b) According to the witness of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus sent out his disciples
to preach and to perform miracles (Matt. 10:7 f.; Mk. 3:14 f.; Lk. 9:1 f.; 10:9;
cf. Mk. 6:7 ff.; Lk. 9:6). The same is reported in the longer ending of Mk. (16:9-
20) concerning the sending-out of the disciples by the Risen Christ (v. 15 ff.;
on the various versions of the ending of Mk. see Metzger, 122-26; W. R. Farmer,
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, 1974).
Similarly, Acts mentions many times the correlation of apostolic proclamation
and apostolic miracle-working (2:2 f.; 4:29 f.; cf. 3:1 ff.; 4:16, 22; 5:12; 6:8;
8:6 ff.; 9:32 ff.; 15:12; 20:7 ff.). The miracles are co-ordinated with the preaching
—they are “‘accompanying signs’’, by which Christ confirms the word of the wit-
nesses (Acts 14:3; cf. Mk. 16:20). As in the authoritative word (Acts 6:10) so in
the signs is manifested the power of the Holy Spirit promised to the disciples (Acts
1:8).
For Paul, too, ‘“word and deed’’, preaching and signs belong together; in both
Christ is at work in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 15:18 f.). Signs and wonders
accompany the proclamation which takes place “in demonstration of the Spirit
and power” (1 Cor. 2:4; cf. 1 Thess. 1:5). They are marks of the divine legitima-
tion and authority of the apostolic office and work (2 Cor. 12:12; cf. Rom. 15:18 f.).
To the hearers of the preaching also the Holy Spirit mediates miraculous powers
(Gal. 3:5). That is why alongside the gifts of proclamation the charisma of healing
and the power to perform miracles belong to the living gifts of the Spirit in the
church (1 Cor. 12:8 ff., 28; cf. Jas. 5:14 f.).
Finally, Hebrews also bears witness that God confirms the preaching of salvation,
which proclaims the dawn of the age of salvation, by signs and wonders (2:3 ff.),
which, as ‘‘powers of the world to come’’ (6:5), foreshadow the completion of
632
MIRACLE
salvation. Kerygma and charisma, preaching and miracles thus belong essentially
together, according to the NT. In both Jesus Christ proves himself to be the living
Lord, present in his church in the Holy Spirit.
(c) As the OT, so also the NT reckons with signs and wonders worked by false
prophets and pseudo-messianic figures (Mk. 13:22; Matt. 24:24; Rev. 13:11 ff.;
16:14; 19:20) by whom men will be seduced into apostasy from God. The—
Antichrist is also expected to perform signs and wonders “‘in the power of Satan”
(2 Thess. 2:3 ff.). O. Hofius
. eae 4 Tépac (teras), miraculous sign, prodigy, portent, omen,
| pee | wonder.
CL terasis attested in literature from Hom. onwards, though its etymology is obscure.
It denotes terrible appearances which elicit fright and horror, and which con-
tradict the ordered unity of nature. This gave rise to the meaning of teras as a
miraculous sign, or portent. The word already has the meaning of a sign from the
gods in Hom., especially in the sense of some uncanny foretoken or omen requiring
interpretation by a seer; this could reveal links with earlier ideas of popular religion.
See further K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT VIII 113-17.
oT In the LXX teras is chiefly the rendering of Heb. mépét, token, sign, miracle.
Its meaning is determined by this, and is thus essentially different from the
secular Gk. usage. It is true that the character of the unusual also belongs to the
word in the OT, but this is “based on the biblical concept of God as the Creator
and Lord of all events and thus transferred from the sphere of the marvellous and
unnatural’, and also “demarcated from the world of myth” (K. H. Rengstorf,
TDNT VIII 119). Essential for mépét and teras is always the reference to the Self-
revelation of Yahweh. The word thus designates a — prophet who is made a sign
(Isa. 8:18; 20:3; Ezek. 12:6, 11; 24:24, 27), and further, a man who becomes a
manifestation of the wrath of God and a sign of horror (Ps. 71:7; cf. 31:12; cf.
also 1QH 13:16; 15:20). An event which announces future judgment can also be
called a sign of horror (1 Ki. 13:3, 5). In apocalyptic contexts teras in Joel 3:3
(LXX 2:30) is a baneful “sign of the end” (— sémeion, oT 3). Finally, the word
can denote miracles in general (Exod. 7:9; 11:9; 2 Chr. 32:31, especially when
linked with — sémeion; cf. 2 Chr. 32:24).
NT In the NT teras occurs 16 times (9 in Acts), exclusively in the plur. and only in
combination with — sémeion (q.v. for individual details). O. Hofius
—> Blind, — Bread, — Deaf, — Heal, — Hunger, — Lame, — Leprosy, — Resur-
rection, — See, — Wine
(a). P. J. Achtemeier, ‘““Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae’’, JBL 89, 1970,
265-91; and “‘The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae’’, JBL 91, 1972, 198-
221; G. Bertram, thambos etc., TDNT III 4-7; and thauma etc., TDNT III 27-42; G. H. Boobyer,
‘“‘The Miracles of the Loaves and the Gentiles in St. Mark’s Gospel’, S/T 6, 1953, 77-87; and
‘The Eucharistic Interpretation of the Miracles and the Loaves in St. Mark’s Gospel’’, JTS New
Series 3, 1952, 161-171; C. Brown, “‘History and the Believer’’, in C. Brown, ed., History, Criticism
and Faith, 1976; R. E. Brown, “Signs and Works’’, The Gospel according to John ,I, 1967, 525-32;
“The Gospel Miracles”, New Testament Essays, 1965, 168-91; and The Virginal Conception
633
MIRACLE
& Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, 1973; A. B. Bruce, The Miraculous Elements in the Gospels, 1886;
R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 19687; and ‘‘The Question of Wonder”’,
Faith and Understanding, 1, 1969, 247-61; J. M. Court, ““The Philosophy of the Synoptic Miracles’’,
JTS New Series 23, 1972, 1-15; J. D. M. Derrett, ‘““Water into Wine” and “‘Peter’s Penny’’,
Law in the New Testament, 1970, 228-46 and 247-65; R. T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A
Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series \1, 1970; R. H. Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles, 1963; A. de Groot,
The Bible on Miracles, St Norbert Abbey Series 19, 1966; R. M. Grant, Miracle and Natural
Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought 1952; H. J. Held, ‘““Matthew as Interpreter
of the Miracle Stories’, in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpreta-
tion in Matthew, 1963, 165-299; H. J. Helfmeyer, ’6t, TDOT I 167-88; R. F. Holland, “The
Miraculous’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 2, 1965 (reprinted in D. Z. Phillips, ed., Religion
and Understanding, 1967, 155-70; E. Hoskyns and F. N. Davey, The Riddle of the New Testa-
ment, 19367, 145-57; D. Hume, “Of Miracles’, Section X of Hume’s Philosophical Essays
Concerning the Human Understanding, 1748 (see the edition of Hume’s Enquiries: Concerning
Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge,
revised by P. H. Nidditch, 1975); M. Inch, “Apologetic Use of ‘Sign’ in the Fourth Gospel’,
EQ 42, 1970, 35-43; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 19637; and New Testament Theology,
I, 1971; J. Kallas, The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles, 1961; E. and M.-L. Keller, Miracles
in Dispute: A Continuing Debate, 1969; H. Knight, ““The Old Testament Concept of Miracle’,
SJT 5, 1952, 355-61; M. J. Langford, ‘“‘The Problem of the ‘Meaning’ of Miracle’, Religious
Studies 7, 1971, 43-52; J. S. Lawton, Miracles and Revelation, 1959; C. S. Lewis, Miracles,
1947; H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, Supplements to NovT 8, 1965; S. V. McCasland,
“Signs and Wonders’’, JBL 76, 1957, 149-52; and “‘Miracle”’, /DB III 392-402; J. F. Miller, “‘Is
‘Miracle’ an Intelligible Notion?’’, SJT 20, 1967, 25-36; L. Monden, Signs and Wonders — A Study
of the Miraculous Element in Religion, 1966; L. Morris, ‘‘Miracles”, The Gospel according to John,
1971, 684-91; C. F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History,
1965; J. B. Mozley, Eight Lectures on Miracles, Bampton Lectures for 1865, 1865; F. Mussner,
The Miracles of Jesus: An Introduction, 1970; J. H. Newman, Two Essays on Biblical and on
Ecclesiastical Miracles, (1870) 18921°; W. Nicol, The Sémeia in the Fourth Gospel: Tradition and
Redaction, Supplements to NovT 32, 1972; A. Oepke, iaomai etc., TDNT III 194-215; E. Pax,
“Miracle”, EBT If 584-89; F. S. Parham, “The Miracle at Cana”, EQ 62, 1970, 107 ff.; I. T.
Ramsey, G. H. Boobyer, M. C. Perry, H. J. Cadbury, The Miracles and the Resurrection, SPCK
Theological Collections, 3, 1964; K. H. Rengstorf, s€meion etc., TDNT VII 20 -69; and teras,
TDNT VIII 11326; A. Richardson, The Miracle-Stories of the Gospels, 1941 and History: Sacred
and Profane, Bampton Lectures for 1962, 1964; P. Riga, ‘Signs of Glory. The Use of ‘Sémeion’ in
St. John’s Gospel’’, Interpretation 17, 1963, 402-24; R. Schnackenburg, ‘“‘The Johannine Signs’’, in
The Gospel according to St John, 1, 1968, 515—28; and ‘“‘Miracles in the New Testament and Modern
Science’’, in Present and Future: Modern Aspects of New Testament Theology, 1966, 44-63; S. S.
Smalley, ‘““The Sign in John xxi’, NTS 20, 1973-74, 275-88; R. D. Smith, Comparative Miracles,
1965; J. P. M. Sweet, “‘A Sign for Unbelievers: Paul’s Attitude to Glossolalia”, NTS 13, 1966-67,
240-57; R. Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle, 1970; F. R. Tennant, Miracle & its Philosophical
Presuppositions, 1925; B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles, 1918 (reprinted as Miracles: Yesterday
and Today, True and False, 1954).
(b). H. Baltensweiler, “‘Wunder und Glaube im Neuen Testament’’, ThZ 23, 1967, 241-56; J.
Becker, “‘Wunder und Christologie’’, NTS 16, 1969-70, 130-48; L. Bieler, Theios anér. Das Bild
des “‘gottlichen Menschen” in Spatantike und Friihchristentum, III, 1935-36; D. Connolly, ‘““Ad
miracula sanationum apud Mt.’’, Verbum Domini 45, 1967, 306-25; G. Delling, “‘Das Verstandnis
des Wunders im Neuen Testament”, ZSTh 24, 1955, 265-80; E. Fascher, Kritik am Wunder,
1960; P. Fiebig, Jiidische Wundergeschichten des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters, 1911; Rabbinische
Wundergeschichten, (1911) 19337; and Antike Wundergeschichten, (1911) 19212; G. Fohrer, Die
symbolischen Handlungen der Propheten, AThANT 54, 1953; A. Fridrichsen, Le Probléme du
Miracle dans le Christianisme Primitif, 1925; K. Gutbrod, Die Wundergeschichten des Neuen
Testaments, 1967; J. Haspecker, ““Wunder im Alten Testament’’, Theologische Akademie 2, 1965,
29-56; A. Heising, Multiplicatio Panum: Die Botschaft der Brotvermehrung, 1966; J. Hempel,
Heilung als Symbol und Wirklichkeit im biblischen Schrifttum, Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu G6ttingen, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 3, 1958; C. A. Keller, Das Wort
634
MIRACLE/MOSES
’6t als ‘‘Offenbarungszeichen Gottes’’. Ein philologisch-theologische Begriffsuntersuchung zum
Alten Testament, 1946; B. Klappert, “‘Die Wunder Jesu im Neuen Testament’’, in Das Ungewoéhn-
liche, Aussaat-Biicherei 45, 1969, 25 ff.; E. Linnemann, “‘Die Hochzeit zu Kana’, N7‘S 20, 1973-
74, 408-18; G. Mensching, Das Wunder im Glauben und Aberglauben der Volker, 1957; G. Mensch-
ing, W. Vollborn, E. Lohse, E. Kasemann, ‘“‘Wunder’’, RGG?® VI 1831 ff.; R. Pesch, Jesu ureigene
Taten ? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage, Questiones Disputatae 52, 1970; G. Quell, ““Das Phanomen
des Wunders im Alten Testament’’, in Verbannung und Heimkehr. Festschrift W. Rudolph, 1961,
253-300; R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistischen Wundererzadhlungen, 1906; R. Renner, Die Wunder Jesu
in Theologie und Unterricht, 1966; J. Scharbert, ‘“Was versteht das Alte Testament unter Wunder ?”’
BuK 22, 1967, 37-46; G. Schille, Die urchristliche Wundertradition Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem
irdischen Jesus, 1966; A. Schlatter, Das Wunder in der Synagoge, 1912; W. Schmithals, Wunder
und Glaube. Eine Auslegung von Mk. 4, 35-6, 6a, BSt 59, 1970; J. P. Seierstad, W. Phillipp, K.
Nitzschke, ‘“‘Wunder’”’, EXL III 1860 ff.; G. Siegmund, ‘‘Theologie des Wunders’’, Theologische
Revue, 58, 1962, 289 ff.; A. Smitmans, Das Weinwunder von Kana. Die Auslegung von Joh. ii. 1-11
bei den Vatern und Heute, 1966; G. Stahlin, ‘“Die Gleichnishandlungen Jesu’’, in Kosmos und
Ekklesia, Festschrift W. Stahlin, 1953, 9 ff.; F. Stolz, ’6t, THAT I 91-95; A. Suhl, Die Wunder
Jesu, 1968; O. Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder, 1909.
Moses
Maionc Moionc (Mojsés), Moses.
oT |. The Gk. form of the name (from the LXX on) probably originates from
Egyptian sources. The first syllable (Moyj-) renders a Coptic, not a Heb. 6-
sound (Pauly-Wissowa, XVI, 1, 360). The Heb. moseh is prob. to be derived from
old Egyptian ms(y), with the meaning “‘son”’ (cf. Thutmosis, Son of Thoth). Moses
is a Short form of the name without the element of the name of the god (cf. S.
Herrmann, “‘Mose’’, EvTh 28, 1968, 303 f.).
2. The following reconstruction represents a cross-section of scholarly opinion.
The older OT tradition characterizes Moses as the charismatic leader of a nomadic
group of people which had been thrown together from various elements, and
which had been condemned to forced labour in the towns of Pithom and Ra‘amses
(Exod. 1:11). Through Moses’ contacts with the nomadic Midianites (2:15 f.;
3:1-4:20), this group of Hebrews eventually fled from — Egypt (14:5). The
destruction in the sea of a troop of Egyptian war-chariots which had been sent
out to pursue them led to the call of this group of nomads by the God Yahweh,
whose action the prophetess Miriam had seen in the event (15:20f.). For the
duration of a generation this group appears to have continued to live in the desert,
before it decided to emigrate into another cultural territory. During this period
of time it had its central shrine at Sinai; but, in addition, visited the shrines of the
Mountain of God and of Massah-Meribah (Kadesh). Moses stands here on a level
with the patriarchs, even though he had to lead a presumably numerically stronger
group.
Before the exile, Mosaic tradition appears to have played a réle only in the
northern kingdom; it gained its fundamental significance through the association
of Moses with the giving of the religious legislation in the Book of the Covenant
(Exod. 20:22—23:20), linking on with the ancient note in Exod. 32:16. With the
increasing significance of divine justice went a growth in the significance of Moses.
He appears in the Deuteronomic law-code as the great law-giver, who shows
635
MOSES
Israel the way of life and death. These traditions became important in the post-
exilic restoration under Ezra, where the law was expounded as the essential basis of
Judah’s existence. Thus Moses was revered as the central Revealer of Israel. The
Prophets, who mention Moses only rarely and in insignificant contexts (such as
Jer. 15:1; Mic. 6:4; Isa. 65:1; Hos. 12:14), now become messengers of God’s
demand for obedience, as the Deuteronomistic history shows. H. Seebass
3. Although the above account represents a marked advance upon the position
once held that Moses could not be regarded as a historical figure, the Bible itself
represents the life of Moses in much greater detail. In Stephen’s speech in Acts his
life was divided into three periods of forty years spent respectively in Egypt, Arabia
and finally in leading Israel through the wilderness (Acts 7:23, 30, 36).
The Book of Exodus sets the birth of Moses in the context of the history of the
descendants of Joseph who remained in Egypt after his death. Whereas they had
once been favoured on his account, there arose ‘‘a new king over Egypt, who did
not know Joseph” (Exod. 1:8), and fearing the growth of the Israelites subjected
them to slavery, setting them to work on the store cities of Pithom and Ra‘amses
(Exod. 1:11). At the time of his birth there was a decree commanding the slaying
of all male Israelites at birth (Exod. 1:16, 22). However, Moses who was born into
a Levite family (Exod. 2:1) was saved by being hidden in a basket among the reeds
along the bank of the Nile, being adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:1—10).
His name is explained in v. 10 from the vb. masdah, draw out (cf. Jos. 8:6; 2 Sam.
22:17), “for she said ‘Because I drew him out of the water.””” His own mother served
as his nurse.
As a young man, he killed an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Israelite, and
was forced to flee for his life (Exod. 2:11—15). He fled to the land of Midian in the
Arabian Peninsula, where he adopted the nomadic way of life, marrying Zipporah,
the daughter of Reuel or Jethro (cf. Exod. 2:18 with 3:1), a priest of Midian, who
bore him a son, Gershom (Exod. 2:16—22). The latter’s name is explained from the
noun gér, sojourner, “for he said, ‘I have been a sojourner in a foreign land’ ”’
(2:22). Moses was summoned from his nomadic existence by Yahweh who had
heard the groaning of his people in — Egypt (Exod. 2:23 ff.). He revealed himself
to Moses in the theophany of the burning bush at Horeb, “‘the mountain of God’’,
declaring his name (—> God, art. theos, OT 2) and commissioning him to lead his
people out of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites,
Hivites and Jebusites, ‘‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (Exod. 3:1—22).
Initially Moses was to ask Pharaoh to let the people go three days’ journey into the
wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh. When Moses hesitated to assume this daunting
task, he was given signs (Exod. 4:1-9) and permitted to let Aaron, his brother,
be his spokesman (Exod. 4:10—-17). Moses then took his wife and son whom he
had omitted to — circumcise, though this was rectified by his wife (Exod. 2:18—26),
and joined Aaron. Together they delivered Yahweh’s call to the people of Israel
who responded in faith (Exod. 2:27-31).
Together Moses and Aaron confronted Pharaoh with the request to let the people
go three days’ journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh. In response
Pharaoh redoubled the burdens of the Israelites (Exod. 5:1—23). In despair Moses
reproached Yahweh for this impossible task but received the renewed promise of
636
MOSES
Yahweh’s help (Exod. 6:1-7:7). At the time Moses was eighty and Aaron eighty-
three years old (Exod. 7:7). Then followed the contest between Moses and Pharaoh
in which the ten great plagues were sent on Egypt: the Nile was turned to “‘blood”’
(Exod. 7:19-25), i.e. blood colour caused by some chemical] pollution which doubt-
less led to other plagues; the plague of frogs (Exod. 8:1—14); that of lice (Exod.
8:16-19; RSV “‘gnats’’); that of flies (Exod. 8:20-32); that of the cattle (Exod.
9:1-7); that of boils (Exod. 9:8-12); that of hail (Exod. 9:13-35); that of the
locusts (Exod. 10:1-20); that of darkness (Exod. 10:21-—29); and the slaying of the
firstborn (Exod. 11:1-12:30); though Israelite families were spared as they cele-
brated the Passover for the first time (Exod. 12:1—28). (On the plagues see K. A.
Kitchen, “‘Plagues of Egypt’, NBD, 1001 ff.; W. White, “Plagues of Egypt’’,
ZPEB IV 804-7.) At this point Pharaoh relented and the exodus commenced
(Exod. 12:31 ff.).
According to Exod. 13:17 f., the route taken avoided a possible clash with the
Philistines lest the Israelites should be daunted and turn back. God “‘led the people
round by the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea’’, carrying the bones of Joseph
with them (v. 19). They were guided by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire
by night. (On the route of the exodus see K. A. Kitchen, “Exodus”, NBD 402 ff.;
C. De Wit, The Date and Route of the Exodus, 1960; and G. I. Davies, “The
Wilderness Itineraries’, 7B 25, 1974, 48-81. On the NT interpretation see R. E.
Nixon, The Exodus in the New Testament, 1963.) Places mentioned along the
route are: Marah, where the bitter waters were sweetened (Exod. 15:23); Elim,
where there were twelve wells of water and seventy palm trees (Exod. 15:27);
the wilderness of Sin, where the people grumbled for want of food and were supplied
with quails (— Bird) and manna (— Bread) (Exod. 16); and Rephidim, where
the smitten rock of Horeb gave water (Exod. 17:1—7). At Rephidim they were
attacked by the Amalekites and defeated them through the intercession of Moses
whose arms were upheld by Aaron and Hur (Exod. 17:8-16). Thereafter Moses
was joined by Jethro who brought with him Zipporah, Gershom and his other son,
Eliezer (from ’e/i, my God, and ‘ézer, help, ‘‘for he said, “The God of my father was
my help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh’ ’’, 18:4). At Jethro’s sugges-
tion Moses appointed rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens to assist in
judging the people (Exod. 18:24 ff.).
After Rephidim Israel encamped before Mount Sinai where Moses and the
people prepared to receive a fresh revelation (Exod. 19:1—-13). Here he received
the Ten Commandments (Exod. 19:14-20:17; — Command). After reading to the
people the laws of the community (Exod. 21:1—23:33), Moses renewed the >
covenant between Yahweh and Israel (Exod. 24). Details of the tabernacle and its
contents were given to Moses by God (Exod. 25-31; — Tent). While Moses was
with Yahweh on Mount Sinai the people turned back to the worship of the gods,
symbolized in the golden calf made by Aaron which Moses destroyed on his
return (Exod. 32). Moses’ indignation led him to break the tables of the law which
he had made (Exod. 32:19). The — glory of Yahweh was revealed to Moses,
although he was not allowed to see Yahweh’s face directly (Exod. 33:12—23). The
tables of the law were renewed (Exod. 34:1-4), and the covenant further renewed
(Exod. 34:10—-27). After this forty day sojourn on the Mount Moses returned
with the tables, his shining face covered by a veil (Exod. 34: 28-35). The remainder
637
MOSES
of the book of Exodus tells how Moses superintended the erection of the tabernacle
(chs. 35-40).
Leviticus (1:1) names Moses as the one to whom Yahweh gave the numerous
statutes for cultic — sacrifice (chs. 1-7), and for the consecration of Aaron and his
sons for the priesthood (chs. 8-9). Judgment fell on Nadab and Abihu for offering
unholy — fire before Yahweh (Lev. 10). Lev. 11-27 contains numerous regulations
governing religious and daily life. Each chapter begins: ‘‘And the Lorp said to
Moses’’, some adding “‘and Aaron’’, especially those concerning cultic matters.
The Book of Numbers represents Yahweh’s continuing dealings with Israel
through Moses. In ch. 1 Moses is charged with numbering the people. Ch. 2 gives
their camping and marching order. Through Moses the — Levites are assigned their
particular tasks (chs. 3 and 4). Through Moses directions are given concerning
unclean persons, trespass, Nazirites etc. (chs. 5 and 6). Num. 7 describes how Moses
received dedicatory gifts from the leaders of the tribes. It was Moses who consec-
rated the Levites (Num. 8). Num. 9:1—10:10 describes the preparations for the
onward journey which recommences with Num. 10:11. Features of the journey
narrative in Num. are: the fire at Taberah which was quenched at Moses’ inter-
cession (Num. 11:1-3); the appointment of seventy elders to assist Moses
(Num. 11:10—-30); the sedition of Miriam and Aaron on account of Moses’
Cushite wife (Num. 12:1—16); the mission of the spies (Num. 13-14); the rebellion
of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Num. 16); the sprouting of Aaron’s rod (Num.
17); the smiting of the rock at Meribah which yielded water at a time of drought
(Num. 20:1-14); the deaths of Miriam (Num. 20:1) and Aaron (Num. 20:22-29);
the plague of the serpents (Num. 21; — Dragon, art. ophis); the abortive attempt
of Balak to make Balaam —> curse Israel (Num. 22-24); the worship of the Baal
of Peor and the sexual relations of the people with the Midianites (Num. 25); the
census (Num. 26); the appointment of Joshua as Moses’ successor (Num. 27); the
command to make war on the Midianites (Num. 31); the assignment of the inheri-
tance to the Reubenites and Gadites (Num. 32); the description of the stages of the
journey and arrangements for the allocation of the promised land (Num. 33-36).
Interspersed with this narrative are further cultic regulations.
Deuteronomy contains a resumé of the journey and various statutes from the
perspective of Moses (Deut. 1:1; cf. 31:24). It is presented as Moses’ farewell
address and concludes with his blessing (Deut. 33). Moses was permitted to see
the promised land from Mount Pisgah, but not to enter it (Deut. 34) on account of
his sin at Meribah (Num. 20:12). Deut. 18:15 contains the promise: “The Lord
your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your
brethren — him you shall heed.” In the NT this was given a christological inter-
pretation (Acts 3:22 f.; 7:37; on the subsequent Jewish interpretation of Deut.
18:15 in both a messianic and a non-messianic sense see J. Jeremias, Mojsés,
TDNT IV 857 ff.). Deut. itself concludes with the declaration: ‘‘And there has not
arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none
like him for the signs and the wonders which the Lord sent him to do... .”’ (Deut.
34:10 f.).
The authorship of the Pentateuch was traditionally ascribed to Moses, except
of course the account of his death. The following passages are explicitly ascribed
to him: the historical and legal narrative of Deut. 1:1-31:23; the song of Moses
638
MOSES
(Deut. 32:1-43); the blessing of Moses (Deut. 33:1-29); and Ps. 90. After the
defeat of the Amalekites Moses was commanded to write a memorial in a book
that God would blot out all remembrance of them under heaven (Exod. 17:14).
Exod. 24:4 reports that ““Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.’’ He delivered the
Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; cf. Deut. 5:5—21). Exod. 24:7 refers to the
“Book of the Covenant” which Moses read to the people. According to Num.
33:2, Moses wrote down all the camp sites by divine command. According to
Deut. 31:9, ‘““Moses wrote this law, and gave it to the priests the sons of Levi, who
carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel’’ (cf.
31:24 ff.). It was to be read to all Israel every seven years (Deut. 31:11). In addition,
Moses commanded the law to be written on stones to be set up on Mount Ebal
by the Israelites when they had passed over the Jordan (Deut. 27:2-8; cf. Jos. 8:30-
35). Various warnings are given against not keeping “all the words of the law
written in this book” (Deut. 28:58; cf. 28:61; 29:19f., 26; 30:10). Genesis,
however, contains no reference to Moses as its author.
The remaining reference to Moses in the OT occur chiefly in Jos. (1:1-17; 3:7;
4:10 ff.; 8:31-35; 9:24; 11:12-23; 12:6; 13:8-33; 14:2-11; 17:4; 18:7; 20:2;
21:2, 8; 22:2-9; 23:6; 24:5). He figures occasionally in other historical books
(Jdg. 1:16, 20; 3:4; 4:11; 1 Sam. 12:6, 8; 1 Ki. 2:35; 8:9, 53, 56; 2 Ki. 14:6; 18:4,
6, 12; 21:8; 23:25; 1 Chron. 6:3, 49; 15:15; 21:29; 22:13; 23:13 ff.; 2 Chron. 1:3;
5:10; 8:13; 23:18; 24:6, 9; 25:4; 30:16; 33:8; 34:14; 35:6, 12; Ezra. 3:2; 6:18;
7:6; Neh. 1:7 f.; 8:1, 14; 9:14; 10:29; 13:1. Outside the historical books the name
of Moses is mentioned in Pss. 77:20; 90 (title); 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23,
32; Isa. 63:11 f.; Jer. 15:1; Dan. 9:11, 13; Mic. 6:4; and Mal. 4:4. Many of these
passages, especially in the historical books, refer to what Yahweh has said or
commanded through Moses. C. Brown
4. In the Hellenistic world, information about Moses is found almost without
exception in anti-Jewish utterances. As the Jews in general, so Moses was reckoned
as an Egyptian (a priest from Heliopolis). He was regarded as law-giver, organizer
of the nation (the twelve tribes), and founder of the Jewish state, its capital and
temple. Since, in Judaism outside Jerusalem, there was no longer any sacrificial
cult, Jews were regarded now as atheoi, those who did not give the gods their due
respect, and as demon-worshippers. Moses was viewed as the scorner of every
cult, or as a magician and a deceiver — his name was often used in magical formulas.
Hecataeus and Posidonius alone spoke of Moses in terms of admiration. Hecataeus
praised Moses for having venerated heaven as God without any images; and Posi-
donius relates that, though Moses had been an Egyptian priest, he left Egypt
voluntarily, because their anthropomorphic and theriomorphic concepts of divinity
did not correspond with his. He founded a society originally free from law (the
Jewish Law provided a major stumbling-block for the whole Hellenistic world) and
worshipped ‘“‘what we collectively call heaven, the universe and nature” (I. Heine-
mann, ‘“‘Moses’’, Pauly-Wissowa, XVI, 1, 361 ff.). See further W. A. Meeks, The
Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, Supplements to
NovT 14, 1967.
5. Hellenistic Judaism produced its apologies in reply. Following the Gk.
scientific method, they concluded that agreement implied original borrowing; and
639
MOSES
so, since the Hellenistic world regarded Egyptian culture as the most ancient, the
apologists attributed this to the patriarchs, and also extolled Moses as the dis-
coverer of writing (cf. Eusebius, Praep.Ev. 9, 27). The rise and growth of the
so-called Moses-romance is important. According to this, Egyptian magicians
prophesied to Pharaoh the birth of a man who would save the Jews and defeat the
Egyptians. For this reason he ordered all the children to be killed. But a childless
daughter of Pharaoh rescued Moses and gave him an Egyptian name (Pauly-
Wissowa XVI, 1, 367 ff.).
6. Throughout Palestinian Judaism Moses was the revealer without equal.
For the Rabbis, the prophets were simply the bearers of the oral tradition which
Moses received at Sinai. Their successors were the scribes (TDNT VI 817 ff.; cf.
Matt. 23:2). Moses and his age were counted as the pattern of the messianic age,
in accordance with the conception of the second exodus as marking the inaugura-
tion of salvation. As Moses suffered, so also the redeemer will suffer. According to
R. Akiba, the messiah would hunger and thirst forty years in the wilderness.
Before manifesting himself he would sojourn in Rome, the city of the enemies, as
Moses sojourned in Egypt, and return from there like Moses’ wife and sons (Exod.
4:20) (cf. TDNT IV 860 f.; SB III 824 ff.). In Qumran Moses is also often named
and celebrated as a law-giver of Israel (e.g. 1QS 1:3; 5:8; 8:15, 22; 1QM 10:6;
1QH 17:12; 1Q22 1:1, 11; 2:5, 11; 4:3; 4Qflor 2:3; 4Qtest 1; 6QD 3:4; CD 5:8,
18, 21; 8:14; 15:2, 9, 12; 16:2, 5; 19:26; cf. W. A. Meeks, op. cit.).
NT In the NT Moses is the most frequently-mentioned OT figure. Jesus shook the
foundations of contemporary Judaism by coming forward as a revealer like
Moses, not as his interpreter, as the OT prophets had been, but distinct from him,
preaching and living in the name of the final arrival of the — kingdom of God. The
NT tradition presents the relationship between Moses and Christ in differing
ways.
1. Mark. Moses is recognized as law-giver (1:44). His law establishes the resur-
rection of the dead, as against the Sadducees (12:19, 26); and establishes the com-
mandment of Exod. 20:12, as against scribal tradition (Mk. 7:10 f.; in v. 14f.
Jesus reveals his new authority). At the transfiguration, — Elijah and Moses
appear; they both suffered (as Jesus does now) under the hatred of their own
people (9:4 f.), on account of their commission. Peter misunderstands the heavenly
appearance, thinking that it 1s an earthly one, and that the new period in the
wilderness has begun, since the three eschatological figures of Moses, Elijah and
the messiah are here united (see Jn. 1:21, 25; cf. CD 9:11; 4Qtest. 5 ff.).
2. Matthew sees a close correspondence between Jesus and Moses. On the birth
narrative (2:1—23) cf. the details and the shape of the Moses-tradition (see above
OT 2), and the reference to — Egypt as the place to which they fled (cf. Matt.
2:20 with Exod. 4:19; and 1:15 with Hos. 11:1; — Fullness, art. plérod). Jesus
stayed in the wilderness for forty days without food and drink, as did Moses on
Sinai (4:1 f.; cf. Exod. 34:28). Above all, Jesus is the new law-giver (cf. 5:1 with law
given from Sinai, Exod. 19 and 20), who, like Moses, dispenses — blessing (5:3 ff.)
and — curse (23:13 ff.). The Mosaic teaching-office of the scribes is recognized
(23:2 f.), but at the same time superseded in that, under the guidance of Jesus,
one is to display a better righteousness than the — Pharisees (5:17—20). (See further
640
MOSES
the discussion of Jesus in relation to the Pentateuch, the exodus and Moses in
W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964, 14-108.)
3. Luke sees Jesus’ connection with Moses as given in the function of the prophet.
Acts 3:22 and 7:37 quote Deut. 18:15 cf. 18: “ca prophet like me [Moses]. As
Moses was mighty both in word and deed (7:22), so Jesus was a mighty — prophet
before God and the people (Lk. 24:19; cf. 7:16; 4:24; 13:33). Like Moses, Jesus
gives chosen men a share in his power and Spirit (10:1, 17 ff.), the seventy (or
seventy-two; on the v./. see Metzger, 150 f.), and later, above and beyond Moses, to
the whole church. As Moses suffered (Acts 7:25 ff.), and as the people disowned
him, even though God had sent him as a ruler and redeemer (7:35), so Jesus had to
be consigned to death, according to Moses and the prophets, by the chief priests and
scribes, and be raised by God to be ruler (Lk. 24:27, 44; cf. Acts 26:22; 28:23).
Whoever, therefore, does not listen to Moses and the prophets will also not believe
the resurrected One (Lk. 16:29—31). It is not true that Stephen (Acts 6:11 ff.) and
Paul (21 :20 ff.; cf. also 18:18; 21:24 ff.) preached a regression from the “‘customs’”’
of Moses: freedom from the requirement of circumcision was demanded by Paul,
with Peter’s concurrence, only for the non-Jews (15:1-21; cf. 16:3). But the
righteousness of faith, which Jesus gives as a gift, Moses’ law could not bring
(13:38).
4. Paul places Moses and Christ in antithesis to one another. As law-giver (Rom.
5:14; 1 Cor. 9:9), Moses gives only the letter (gramma) — the man who fulfills the
righteousness of the law will live (Rom. 10:5). It is in this way that Paul expresses
Moses’ ‘‘dispensation of death’’; it possesses only a fading glory (2 Cor. 3:7; cf.
Gal. 3:17 ff.). By way of contrast, the “dispensation of the righteousness which
leads to faith” (2 Cor. 2:9) possesses the — Spirit (pneuma) and a permanent glory
(eisegesis of Exod. 34:29 ff.). The ‘‘dispensations” represent synagogue and —
church. To this day the Jews have a ‘“‘veil over the heart’? when ‘‘Moses”’ is read
(v. 15). But the new Israel beholds the glory of the Lord “‘with unveiled face’? and
is transformed from one degree of glory to another. All this comes from the Lord
who is the Spirit (3:17 f.). If Israel would open his heart to the Lord, the veil
would disappear (v. 16), and Moses would be recognized as a witness to the
righteousness of God. God chooses solely on the basis of his promise, not on the
basis of human zeal (Rom. 9:15 f.); the calling of the Gentiles shows that Israel’s
law creates no privilege in God’s sight (10:19). Baptism into Moses (a formation
built on the analogy of “‘baptism into Jesus’’) was a promise, not a natural law.
Those baptized did indeed receive the gifts of the Spirit, but since they did not
remain within the promise, they perished (1 Cor. 10:2-5).
5. John stands starkly opposed to Judaism. The teaching of Jesus which interprets
the Scriptures comes directly from God, not from their own study (7:15 f.).
Anyone who wants to do God’s will — the first commandment, not the individual
commandments! — will know whether the teaching is from God (v. 17). But none
of the Jews keep the law, for they base their lives on its letter and not, as the law
itself demands, on God and his revealer (v. 19). Moses’ law, as such, is surpassed
by Jesus (1:17). Nevertheless, it accuses the Jews before God, because it witnesses
(5:39, 45 ff.) to the revealer who will be like Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18). The people
rightly recognize that Jesus is the promised prophet (6:14), but in trying to make
him king they fail to understand that his kingdom is not of this world (18:36). The
| 641
MOSES
leaders of the people call themselves Moses’ disciples (9:28), but in untruth. For
the new revealer has come (1:17), and he is the true bread of life; those who ate the
bread Moses gave them died (6:32-35, 48-51). Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness to preserve people’s earthly lives; but when Jesus is “‘lifted up’’, every-
one who believes in him will have eternal life (3:14 ff.; + Dragon, art. ophis).
6. Hebrews stresses that the pattern given by Moses has been surpassed and
fulfilled in Christ. Jesus’ faithfulness is greater than Moses’, because he, as the
Son, came from God’s high heaven, and is not only, like Moses, a servant in God’s
house (3:2 ff.). Jesus is the High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, which Moses
once saw and of which he tried to build the earthly copy (8:5). The church of
Christ is not led to Sinai which terrified Moses with its fire and smoke, lightning
and thunder (12:18 f.): it can approach with confidence. Even it must not refuse
him who is speaking (12:25) for judgment awaits those who spurn God. Moses is
pictured in 11:23 ff. as a pattern for faith, even in suffering. In 3:16 he is recalled
as the leader out of Egypt; and in 7:14 and the law-giver.
7. There are three further isolated references in the NT. In Rev. 15:3 the passing
through the sea is a pattern for the deliverance of the saints from suffering in the
last days. The fragment of Jude 9 is based on later traditions preserved in the
apocryphal Assumption of Moses and various fathers which said that Satan fought
with Michael when over the body of Moses (cf. E. M. B. Green, The Second Epistle
General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude , 1968, 169 f.; J. N. D. Kelly, A
Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 1969, 264f.; cf. also TDNT IV
854 f.). In 2 Tim. 3:8, Jannes and Jambres were the Egyptian magicians, according
to the Moses-romance, who imitated the miracle of turning a staff into a serpent
(see SB I 660 ff.). Their names are not mentioned in the account of Exod. 7:11 (cf.
C. Spicq, Les Epitres Pastorales, 1947, 370 ff.). H. Seebass
—> Command, — Egypt, — Israel, — Law, — People, — Wilderness
(a). E. Arden, ““How Moses Failed God’’, JBL 76, 1957, 50 ff.; E. Auerbach, Moses, 1953; B. W.
Bacon, Studies in Matthew, 1930; D. Beegle, Moses, the Servant of Yahweh, 1972; J. Bright, A
History of Israel, (1960) 1972; M. Buber, Moses, 1947; G. I. Davies, ““The Wilderness Itineraries’’,
TB 25, 1974, 46-81; W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964, 25-108; D.
Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956, 5-12; and The Exodus Pattern in the
Bible, 1963; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1, 1961, 189-96; G. Fohrer, History of
Israelite Religion, 1973, 66-86; S. Freud, Moses and Monotheism, 1939; J. G. Gager, Moses in
Greco-Roman Paganism, 1972; T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, SBT 40, 1963; J.
Jeremias, Mdysés, TDNT IV 848-73; R. F. Johnson, “‘Moses’’, DB III 440-50; T. Keneally,
Moses the Law-giver, 1976; G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew,
1946; K. A. Kitchen, ‘“‘Moses,’’ NBD 843-50; M. G. Kyle, Moses and the Monuments, 1920; J.
MacDonald, ‘‘The Samaritan Doctrine of Moses’, SJT 13, 1960, 149-62; W. A. Meeks, The
Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, Supplements to NovT 14, 1967; A.
Neher, Moses and the Vocation of the Jewish People, 1959; R. E. Nixon, The Exodus in the New
Testament, 1963; M. Noth, A History of the Pentateuch Traditions, 1972; G. von Rad, Old Testa-
ment Theology, I, 1962, 289 ff.; and The Problems of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1965; M.
Rist, ‘““Moses, Assumption of”, /DB III 450 f.; H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua, 1950;
‘“Moses and the Decalogue’’, in Men of God, 1963, 1-36; and From Moses to Qumran: Siudies
in the Old Testament, 1963; O. Schilling, “‘Moses”, EBT II 593-96; H. M. Teeple, The Mosaic
Eschatological Prophet, JBL Monograph Series, 1957; 1. H. Weisfeld, This Man Moses, 1966;
G. Widengren, ““What do we know about Moses?’’, in J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter, eds.,
Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, 1970, 21-
47; F. V. Winnett, The Mosaic Tradition, 1949; C. De Wit, The Date and Route of the Exodus, 1960.
(b). C. Barth, ““Mose, Knecht Gottes’’, in Parrhesia. Karl Barth zum achtzigsten Geburtstag, 1966,
642
Moses/MyYTH
68-81; H. Cazelles et al., Moise, L’Homme de |’ Alliance, 1955; H. Gressmann, Mose und seine
Zeit, 1913; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “‘Mose in Midian”, ZTK 61, 1964, 1 ff.; I. Heinemann, “‘Moses’’,
Pauly-Wissowa, XVI, 1, 359-75; S. Hermann, ‘“‘Mose”, Ev7h 28, 1968; 301 ff.; K. Kastner,
Moses im Neuen Testament, dissertation, 1967; C. A. Keller, ““Vom Stand und Aufgabe der
Moseforschung’’, ThZ 13, 1957; H. Kremers, ‘‘Mose’’, EKL II 1458 ff.; E. Osswald, ‘““Moses”’,
RGG? IV 1151 ff.; and Das Bild Mose, 1962; H. Schmid, Mose. Uberlieferung und Geschichte,
BZAW 110, 1968; H. Seebass, Mose und Aaron, Sinai und Gottesberg, 1962; E. Sellin, Mose
und seine Bedeutung fiir die israelitisch-jiidische Religionsgeschichte, 1922; R. Smend, Das Mosebild
von Heinrich Ewald bis Martin Noth, 1959; F. Stier and E. Beck, Moses in Schrift und Uber-
lieferung, 1963; P. Volz, Mose und sein Werk, 19322.
Myth
| LoGoc | LLOGoc¢ (mythos), myth, story.
CL In Homer mythos is used of any kind of speech (e.g. mythoisi kekasthai, Od. 7,
157, means to be skilled in speech) and sometimes even of unspoken thought, a
plan conceived in the mind (e.g. echet’ en phresi mython, Od. 15, 445, ‘““you have a
plan in your mind’’). More particularly it is used of a story, whether true or false
(all age moi tou paidos agauou mython enispes, Od. 11, 92, ‘“‘come, tell me the news
of that noble son of mine’’). In this usage there is no distinction between mythos
and logos (— Word); cf. Aeschylus, Persae 713, akousei mython en brachei logo,
“you will hear a story in brief utterance [in few words].”’ But as early as Pindar a
distinction appears between mythos, fiction, and Jogos, factual narrative: “popular
report which exceeds the true account [/ogos]” tends to consist of “‘tales [mythoi]
decked out with variegated lies’? which “‘lead people astray” (O/. 1, 28 f.), and
even Homer’s lore “deceives people, leading them astray with tales [mythoi]”
(Nem. 7, 23).
Thucydides mentions the story-telling propensity (to mythédes) of the chroniclers
(logographoi) who preceded him, whose aim was “‘to please the ear rather than to
speak the truth’; by contrast, he allowed that readers might be put off by the lack
of this feature (to mé mythddes) in his own work, but claimed that his aim was to
provide an everlasting possession rather than a passing pleasure (History 1, 21 f.).
Among those predecessors he may have had in mind Herodotus, who believed
that a good story was worth recording, whether it was credible or incredible, like
the “‘silly fable [ewéthés mythos] which, he says, the Greeks tell about Heracles’s
adventures in Egypt (Hist. 2, 45).
The mythos plays a special part in Plato’s exposition of truth. When philosophical
debate leads him so far on his quest but cannot proceed further, the poet in Plato
takes over and expresses in the form of an imaginative story or parable the insight
which is the goal of his quest. His mythopoeic workmanship is indebted to the
myths of epic poetry and to those of Orphism and the Eleusinian mysteries, but the
Platonic myth has a quality of its own. Examples are the two myths of Eros (Symp.
189c-193d; 202d—212a), and those of creation (Tim. 29d-92b), of the world to
come (Gorgias 523a—524a) and of the judgment of the dead (Rep. 10, 614a—621d).
The word mythos was a technical term in classical Greek for the plot of a tragedy
or comedy (Aristotle, Poetics 1449 b 5; 1450a 4; 1451 a 16). This usage probably
goes back to the time when these art-forms were wholly religious: the mythos or
643
MYTH
hieros logos was a sacred story involving the gods, and the drama (from drao, do,
act) was the ritual enactment of the story, each being necessary to the other and to
the whole production.
oT This last use of mythos in classical Greek has been thought to be applicable to
the world of the OT. The vocabulary of Greek dramatic tradition has been
taken over in the 20th century by the “‘myth and ritual’’ school of Near Eastern
religious history (“‘school’’ being used here in a very imprecise sense). T. H.
Gaster, for example, has explained the religious texts from Ugarit as the mythoi of
seasonal rites of “emptying” and ‘“‘filling’’ which he tries to reconstruct (Thespis,
1950). Some scholars have postulated a ritual pattern over a great area of the
ancient Near East, exemplified in the Akitu or New Year festival in Babylon and in
a reconstructed festival of the enthronement of Yahweh at the autumnal Feast of
Tabernacles in Israel. In this pattern the myth of the dying and rising god (repre-
senting originally such phenomena as the annual withering and revival of vegeta-
tion) figured prominently; in the ritual his place was supposedly taken by the king,
worsted in ritual combat, dethroned and humiliated, but subsequently restored to
life and power. The king might be regarded as the embodiment of the god (divine
kingship) or as his mediatorial representative among the people (sacral kingship).
References to the king in the Psalms have been freely interpreted in terms of this
hypothesis (e.g. in Ps. 89:38-45 he is ritually vanquished and banished to the
underworld; in Ps. 18 he returns thanks for his deliverance from the power of
death; in Pss. 2 and 110 he is reinstated on his throne). That the kingship of Yahweh
was festally celebrated in Israel is certain: ““God has gone up with a shout; Yahweh
with the sound of a trumpet” (Ps. 47:5) points to some action suitable to the words.
But it is much more likely that in such a celebration the sacred ark, not the king,
represented the divine presence.
In a more general way, the narrative of Exod. 1-15 has been viewed as the “‘story”’
accompanying and explaining the annual passover meal (cf. J. Pedersen, Israel
ITI-IV, 1940, 726); but if so, the story is not a seasonal myth but the record of a
deliverance accomplished once in Israel’s national history and annually commem-
orated thereafter, so that successive generations might “re-live”? the event. (We
may compare the reading or recitation of part of the passion narrative in the course
of the holy communion; that is the story which explains the commemorative
action.)
In LXX mythos appears very seldom, and never in books translated from the
Hebrew Bible. In Sir. 20:19 (an a section for which no Heb. text is extant) an
ungracious man is compared to “‘a story told at the wrong time [mythos akairos],
which is continually on the lips of the ignorant.” In Bar. 3:23 “‘the story-tellers
[mythologoi| and the seekers for understanding have not learned the way to
wisdom’’. In both these places the word has its most general sense of “‘story’’. In
Wis. 17:4(A) mythos appears as a meaningless scribal error for mychos, inner
chamber (‘“‘not even the inner chamber that held them protected them from fear’’).
NT In NT mythos is found only in the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Peter, and always in a
disparaging sense. Timothy is told to forbid “‘certain persons’? at Ephesus to
“occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote specula-
tions” (1 Tim. 1:4). Irenaeus (Haer. 1, praef.), followed by Tertullian (De praescr.
644
MYTH
7; 33; Adv. Val. 3) supposed this to be a reference to the cosmological genealogies of
Valentinianism. The context of the Pastorals, however, suggests a Jewish element
in these myths; cf. the injunction to ‘“‘avoid stupid controversies, genealogies,
dissensions, and quarrels over the law” (Tit. 3:9). Perhaps a mixture of Jewish and
incipient gnostic speculation is indicated, as in the mythical Ophite genealogies
mentioned by Irenaeus (Haer. 1, 30, 9). The “profane and old wives’ fables”’
(mythoi) of 1 Tim. 4:7 (so AV; RSV has the less colourful “‘godless and silly
myths’’) are probably of the same sort (cf. Plato, Rep. 1, 350c, tais grausi tais tous
mythous legousais, ‘the old women who tell fables’’), as are the ‘‘myths”’ into which
hearers with “itching ears’ are led astray by false teachers (2 Tim. 4:4) or the
“Jewish myths” to which the Cretan Christians must be admonished to turn a
deaf ear (Tit. 3:14). These myths are set in contrast to “‘the truth’’; they are sub-
versive of sound faith. The gospel belongs to quite a different category: it is a
record of fact, for “we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known
to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses .. .”’
(2 Pet. 1:16).
A new aspect of myth in relation to NT story was opened up with the launching
in 1941 of the ““demythologizing programme”’ specially associated with the name
of R. Bultmann (see bibliography). Bultmann’s thesis, in brief, is that if the gospel
is to make its proper impact today, it must be freed from those features which
belong to the world-view of the culture in which it was first preached and presented
in terms which will expose the hearers immediately to its challenge and its ‘‘offence’’.
These dispensable features include not only the three-decker universe but the con-
cept of our world as open to invasion by transcendent powers — including such
credal elements as the pre-existent Christ, his being sent into this world by the
Father, his historical resurrection, and the personal activity of the Holy Spirit.
Such demythologizing, Bultmann believes, is a necessary continuation of the work
of the Reformers: security based on good works and security based on objectifying
knowledge are alike inimical to the gospel of justification by faith alone. Demythol-
ogizing is naturally a negative process, and to list the negative features of Bult-
mann’s programme may give a distorted impression of his intention, which must
be seen from the perspective of his theology as a whole.
One form of demythologizing was practised by the NT writers themselves. When
Paul demoted the “‘principalities and powers” which dominated the lives of men
and women without Christ to the status of “weak and beggarly elemental spirits”’
(Gal. 4:9), conquered and bound by Christ who liberates their former captives
(Col. 2:15), he was in effect demythologizing them; we may compare the reinter-
pretation of the traditional Antichrist in 1 John 2:18 in terms of the false teachers of
John’s day.
Many of the NT elements designated mythological by the demythologizing
school are related by it to a redeemer-myth held to have originated in Iranian
religion (in which the part of the redeemer was taken by Gayomart, the primal
man) and to have been taken over by gnosticism. In its developed form, this gnostic
myth portrays a heavenly essence which falls from the upper realm of light into the
lower world of material darkness where it is imprisoned in a multitude of earthly
bodies. To liberate it from its imprisonment a saviour comes from the realm of
light, who accomplishes his mission by the impartation of true — knowledge
645
MYTH
(gnosis). By the acceptance of this true knowledge from one who is both redeemer
and revealer, the pure essence attains release from the bonds of matter and re-
ascends to its proper abode.
This gnostic myth appears in its most lucid form in the Mandaean literature,
which, however, is several centuries later than the NT documents. Even the
Iranian redeemer-myth presumed to lie behind it is not attested until the 7th
century A.D. and later. It is doubtful, indeed, if the primal man of the Iranian
tradition and the concept of the redeemer-revealer were ever brought together in
the characteristic gnostic myth except under the influence of the gospel. It is
certainly very difficult to find evidence of the gnostic myth in the apostolic age,
let alone in pre-Christian times. The most that can be said of the doctrinal devia-
tions attacked in Colossians and | John is that they reflect incipient forms of gnos-
ticism.
But forms of the gnostic myth have been recognized not only in deviations
attacked in the NT but even more plainly in positive expositions of the gospel.
R. Bultmann, who already accepted R. Reitzenstein’s case for the pre-Christian
dating of the Iranian redeemer-myth, published in 1925 an epoch-making article
“Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandaischen und manichdischen Quellen
fiir das Verstandnis des Johannesevangeliums’’, ZNW 24, 100-146, in which he
argued for an affinity between the discourses of the Gospel of John and the Man-
daean redeemer-myth — an affinity which could be explained only if the Mandaean
texts were primary and the Johannine discourses derivative. This thesis was later
elaborated in Bultmann’s magisterial commentary on The Gospel of John (st
edition, 1941; E. T. 1971).
Again, H. Schlier, formerly a disciple of Bultmann, maintained in Christus und
die Kirche im Epheserbrief (1930) that the Letter to the Ephesians derived some of
its dominant motifs from the world of gnostic thought, such as the redeemer’s
ascent to heaven, the heavenly wall (Eph. 2:14), the heavenly man, the church as
the — body of Christ, the body of Christ as a heavenly building, and the heavenly
bridal union. (It 1s a measure of Schlier’s departure from the school in which he
was brought up that by 1965, in the Sth edition of his commentary, Der Brief an
die Epheser, he was able to combine this position with an acceptance of Pauline
authorship.) But, as has been said, until more positive evidence of the pre-Christian
date of this elaborate myth is forthcoming than hypothetical reconstructions from
late Mandaean texts can supply, theses like Bultmann’s and Schlier’s cannot be
regarded as having adequate foundation.
Quite different is the approach of C. Williams, C. S. Lewis and others, who have
maintained that in Christianity the ancient myths have come true, that when God
became Man, as Lewis put it, ““Myth became Fact’’, so that the aspirations and
insights of the human soul which have from ancient times found mythological
expression have been given a satisfying answer in the historical events of the gospel.
F. F. Bruce
(a). 1. G. Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms, 1974; H. W. Bartsch, ed., Kerygma and Myth,
E. T., I, 1953; II, 1962; U. Bianchi, ed., Le Origini dello Gnosticismo, 1967; F. F. Bruce, ““Myth
and History’’, in C. Brown, ed., History, Criticism and Faith, 1976, 79-100; R. Bultmann, “‘New
Testament and Mythology’ (1941) in Bartsch, op. cit., I, 1-44; Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1960; D.
Cairns, A Gospel without Myth, 1960; B.S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, SBT 27,
19627; F. L. Cross, ed., The Jung Codex, 1955; A. Cunningham, The Theory of Myth, 1974; F. W.
646
MYTH
Dillistone, ed., Myth and Symbol, SPCK Theological Collections 7, 1966; J. S. Dunne, The
City of the Gods, 1974; I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, 19677; T.
Fawcett, Hebrew Myth and Christian Gospel, 1973; H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 1948;
H. Frankfort and others, Before Philosophy, 1946; T. H. Gaster, Thespis, 1950; F. Gogarten,
Demythologizing and History, 1955; H. Harris, David Friedrich Strauss and his Theology, 1973;
and The Tiibingen School, 1975; I. Henderson, Myth in the New Testament, 1952; S. H. Hooke,
The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, 1935; Middle Eastern Mythology, 1963; S. H. Hooke,
ed., Myth and Ritual, 1933; The Labyrinth, 1935; Myth, Ritual and Kingship, 1958; A. R. John-
son, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, 19677; R. A. Johnson, The Origins of Demythologizing:
Philosophy and Historiography in the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, Studies in the History of
Religions, Supplements to Numen, 28, 1974; W. Johnstone, ‘““The Mythologizing of History
in the Old Testament’, SJT 24, 1971, 201-17; H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 1958; G. V. Jones,
Christology and Myth in the New Testament, 1956; C. W. Kegley, ed., The Theology of Rudolf
Bultmann, 1966; M. T. Kelsey, Myth, History and Faith, 1974; C. S. Lewis, Till we have Faces,
1956; “Is Theology Poetry?’ in Screwtape Proposes a Toast and Other Pieces, 1965, 41-58;
J. Macquarrie, The Scope of Demythologizing, 1960; A. Malet, The Thought of Rudolf Bult-
mann, 1969; L. Malevez, The Christian Message and Myth, 1958; G. Miegge, Gospel and Myth
in the Thought of Rudolf Bultmann, 1960; S. M. Ogden, Christ Without Myth, 1962 (cf. D. L.
Deegan, “‘Article Review: Christ Without Myth”, SJT 17, 1964, 83-9); W. Pannenberg, ‘‘The
Later Dimensions of Myth in Biblical and Christian Tradition’’, Basic Questions in Theo-
logy, III, 1972, 1-79; A. S. Peake, Faded Myths, 1908; G. Quispel, ““From Mythos to Logos’’,
Eranos Jahrbuch 39, 1970, 323-340; H. Riesenfeld, ‘““The mythological background of New
Testament Christology’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., The Background of the New Testa-
ment and its Eschatology, In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1954, 81-95; J. W. Rogerson, Myth
in Old Testament Interpretation, BZAW 134, 1974; W. Schmithals, An Introduction to the Theology
of Rudolf Bultmann, 1968; G. Stahlin, Mythos, TDNT IV, 762-795; J. A. Stewart, The Myths of
Plato, 1905; D. F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, (ET 1846) ed. P. C. Hodgson,
1973; B. H. Throckmorton, The New Testament and Mythology, 1960; P. Tillich, ‘““Myth and
Mythology’, in Twentieth Century Theology in the Making, ed. J. Pelikan, II, 1970, 342-354; G.
Wagener, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, 1967; K. Ward, ““Myth and Fact in Christianity’’,
SJT 20, 1967, 385-96; R. McL. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem, 1958; Gnosis and the New Testament,
1968; E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, 1973; varii, La Regalita Sacra/The Sacral Kingship,
1959.
(b). G. Backhaus, Kerygma und Mythos bei David Friedrich Strauss und Rudolf Bultmann, 1956;
P. Barthel, Interprétation du Langage Mythique et Théologie Biblique: Etude de Quelques Etapes
de Il’Evolution du Probléme de I’Interprétation des Représentations d’Origine et de Structure
Mythiques de la Foi Chrétienne, 1967; G. Bornkamm, Mythus und Legende in den apokryphen
Thomasakten, 1933; R. Bultmann, “‘Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossenen mandaischen und
manichaischen Quellen fiir das Verstandnis des Johannesevangeliums’”’, ZNW 24, 1925, 100-146;
C. Colpe, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule, 1961; C. Hartlich and W. Sachs, Der Ursprung des
Mythosbegriffes in der modernen Bibelwissenschaft, Schriften der Studiengemeinschaft der evangel-
ischen Akademien 2, 1952; H. W. Hassig, Worterbuch der Mythologie, I-II, 1973; K. Reinhardt,
Platons Mythen, 1927; R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 1910; Das iranische
Erloésungsmysterium, 1921; H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 1930; J. Slok, J.
Haekel, S. Mowinckel, R. Bultmann, E. Fuchs and H. Meyer, ‘“‘Mythos und Mythologie’, RGG?
III, 1263-1283; G. Widengren, Sakrales Kénigtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum, 1955.
647
Name
Wyola Ovolia (onoma), name; dvoudac¢w (onomazo), to call,
| U | name; ézovouidalw (eponomazo), call by a name, give a
surname; wevdm@voploc (pseuddnymos), bearing a false name.
CL onoma, from the Indo-Germanic *(e)nomn- (cf. Lat. nomen), means name.
Derived from the noun are two vbs.: (1) onomazo, name, specify, designate,
tell, express, indicate, assent, promise; and (2) eponomazo, apply a word as a name,
denominate, give a second name or surname, nickname. pseudonymos, formed
from the addition of pseud-, false, means bearing a false name; or falsely, incor-
rectly, inappropriately named.
1. In the faith and thought of virtually every nation the name is inextricably
bound up with the person, whether of a man, a god, or a demon. Anyone who
knows the name of a being can exert power over it. In > magic the potential
energy which resides in the name can be translated into effective power if the name
is mentioned or used in an oath (details in K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae,
I-III, 1928-42; see also TDNT V 250 ff.).
In the Gk. thought of the 5th and 6th cents. B.c. the question arose of the
relationship between the name and the thing or being so named. Among the
Sophists, the prevalent opinion was that the name did not belong to things by
nature. In the Cratylus Plato was concerned with problems of linguistic philosophy:
in what relationship do words and things, concepts and thought stand to one an-
other? For Plato, words are phonetic symbols, which receive their meaning through
custom, general agreement and thought, and are thus of little relevance for true
knowledge. The Stoics declared that speech originated by physical necessity
(physei) in the — soul of man, and that words represented things in accordance
with their nature; as regarded content, the spoken word, the concept and the object
itself were all alike (TDNT V 248). This opinion was very widely held later on.
The discussions of the names of the gods were important for the relationship
between language and its object. Hesiod had already tried to find the key to the
nature of the gods from the etymology of their names. The names of the gods were
viewed as ‘‘verbal cult-pictures’”’ (Democritus, Frag. 142, in Diels-Kranz‘ I, 170,
9). The aspect of the terrible and unapproachable was thus appropriate for them
(Plato, Philebus 12c; Cratylus 403a). Others, such as Menander and Aristides,
represent the view-point that the higher a god stood, the more names he had.
Alternatively, the Stoics attempted to overcome polytheism by transferring all the
many names to one god, Zeus: here, the plurality of names expressed fullness of
being. But the many names of the god of the universe can be transmuted into
648
NAME
namelessness, in that no name does justice to the fullness of the godhead. This line
of thought has continued right up to modern times (cf. Goethe’s Faust, ““Who may
name him?’’). The magical phrases and formulae found on the papyri of late
antiquity reveal the belief in the power and effectiveness of the names of gods and
demons.
OT The Heb. sém appears some 770 times in the OT, the Gk. onoma in over 1000
references in the LXX.
1. The Israelites were also well aware of the significance of personal and proper
names. The best-known example is that of Nabal, who is a fool, as his name suggests
(1 Sam. 25:25). In this context belong also the numerous (national) etymological
interpretations which are offered where people and places are given names: Eve,
“the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20; — Adam, art. Heua); Cain, “‘I have gotten a
man with the help of the Lord’’, cf. ganadh, get (Gen. 4:1); Babel, “because the
Lord confused the language of all the earth’’, cf. balal, confuse (Gen. 11:9; —
Babylon). The name Isaac is a reminder of his parents’ laughter (Gen. 17:17; 18:12;
—> Abraham, art. Isaak); Jacob holds the heel (Gen. 29:31 ff. — Israel, art. Jakob).
To give a name is, in addition, to exercise lordship and dominion: cf. that of
Adam over the animals in Gen. 2:19 f.; over a town in 2 Sam. 12:28; and over a
land in Ps. 49:11. Women long to take the name of a man, and so to become his
possession and enjoy his protection (Isa. 4:1). As the one who gives names to the
stars, Yahweh is their Creator and Lord (Ps. 147:4); in the same way he calls —
Israel by name and makes him his possession (Isa. 43:1; 63:19). Absalom, who
has no son to perpetuate his name, erects a monument as a memorial to his name
(2 Sam. 18:18).
Changes of name also testify to their significance (Gen. 41:45; 2 Ki. 23:34).
Even Yahweh can undertake to change someone’s name, when he gives his chosen
ones a new importance in their own situation or for the future. Thus Abram be-
comes —> Abraham, the father of many nations (Gen. 17:5); Jacob becomes —
Israel, because he has fought with God (Gen. 32:28). Abraham’s name, and also
the names of Ephraim and Manasseh, have an importance over and above the
actual bearers of the name (Gen. 48:20). Jerusalem receives a new name in the
last days (Isa. 62:2); Isaiah gives his children symbolic names (Isa. 7:3; 8:3); and
the names of the bearers of salvation are a guarantee of Yahweh’s grace (Isa. 7:14;
Zech. 6:12).
2. Of primary significance is the name of Yahweh, which he himself made
known in his revelation (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 3:14; 6:2; — God, art. theos oT 2). One
of the most fundamental and essential features of the biblical revelation is the
fact that God is not without a name: he has a personal name, by which he can,
and is to be, invoked. When appeal is made to Yahweh, he comes near and makes
his promise true: ‘“‘in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will
come to you and bless you” (Exod. 20:24; cf. Num. 6:24 ff.; — Remember).
Priests and Levites, and even the king, — bless in the name of Yahweh (Num.
6:27; Deut. 10:8; 2 Sam. 6:18). The name of Yahweh, indeed, is such a powerful
expression of his personal rule and activity that it can be used as an alternative
way of speaking of Yahweh himself (Lev. 18:21; Ps. 7:17; Amos 2:7; Mic. 5:4).
It is the side of Yahweh which is turned towards men, in which Yahweh reveals
649
NAME
himself. His historical dealings with men in the past (Exod. 3:6, 13, 15), present
(Exod. 20:7) and future (Ezek. 25:17; 34:50 et al.) are inextricably bound up with
his name. Misuse of this name in — magic or in false oaths (for oaths were accom-
panied by mention of Yahweh’s name; — Swear) is forbidden (Exod. 20:7), for
the name of Yahweh is a gift of the revelation which is not at man’s disposal (Gen.
17:1; Exod. 3:14; 6:2). The name of Yahweh is committed in trust to Israel: the
heathen do not know it (Ps. 79:6). Israel has the task of hallowing it. This takes
place in the cult, at sacrifice, in prayer, in blessing and cursing, and also in the
holy — war (Ps. 29:8), in other words, in serving Yahweh, and him alone, and
in obeying his commands. To take part in the cult-worship of another god
therefore involves profanation of the name of Yahweh (Lev. 19:21). The invoca-
tion of his name over — Jerusalem (Jer. 25:29), over the — temple (Jer. 7:10)
and over the ark (2 Sam. 6:2), consecrating them and associating them with him,
is the sole basis of that sanctity (— Holy).
3. Deut. gives the following answer to the question as to how Israel can have
dealings with Yahweh: Yahweh himself dwells in heaven, but he chooses on earth
a place where he causes his “‘name’”’ to dwell (Deut. 12:11; 14:23; cf. 2 Sam. 7:13;
1 Ki. 3:2; 5:17). In that his name dwells in the — temple, Yahweh’s presence is
itself guaranteed; but only in such a way that even if the temple is profaned,
Yahweh’s transcendence remains preserved (cf. 1 Ki. 8:13, where Yahweh dwells
in thick darkness with 1 Ki. 8:14 ff., where Yahweh’s name dwells in the temple).
Yahweh’s name, like Yahweh himself, remains sovereign.
4. As a result of this, Yahweh’s name assumes a powerful and independent
existence of its own, although it is naturally still very closely linked with Yahweh
himself. Through its mighty sway, the godly experience Yahweh’s protection and
help (cf. Prov. 18:10; Mal. 1:11; Ps. 54:6). His name almost becomes a hypostasis
of Yahweh himself (cf. Pss. 54:1; 89:24; 118:10 ff.). It occupies the place taken
in other religions by the cultic image (cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I,
1962, 183 f.).
5. In later times Yahweh’s name is frequently used in the sense of the “‘praise”’
or “glory” of Yahweh (Isa. 26:8; 55:13; Ps. 41:10). Turns of expression, such as
“for the sake of Yahweh’s name”’ or “Yahweh is his name” (Exod. 15:3; Isa. 51:15;
Jer. 10:16; Amos 4:13; Ps. 23:3), point in the same direction, indicating Yahweh’s
claim to sovereign authority and glory in the world and amongst those nations to
whom Israel makes it known (Isa. 12:4; Ps. 105:1—3). ‘Indeed in the end Jahweh
is to be revealed to the world in such a way that all worship of idols vanishes away,
and every knee will bow to his name alone (Zech. xiv. 9; Isa. xLv. 23)” (von Rad,
Old Testament Theology, I, 185).
6. (a) The expression “‘in the name” (Heb. b*sém) occurs very frequently in the
OT. Linked with the names of places or people it can mean by name (Jos. 21:9),
after the name of (Jdg. 18:29), in the name (1 Ki. 21:8; Est. 3:12), on behalf of
(1 Sam. 25:9). |
(b) But the phrase appears most often in association with the name of Yahweh,
with the primary meaning of calling upon, invoking Yahweh by his name, that is,
worshipping him in the cult (cf. Gen. 4:26, 12:8). The formula is also used in
order to — swear, to bless (> Blessing) and to — curse, since by the use of the
expression, Yahweh’s might is called upon to interpose (Deut. 5:13; 10:8; 2 Sam.
650
NAME
6:18; 2 Ki. 2:24). It means further ‘“‘on behalf of” Yahweh (Ex. 5:22 f.; Deut.
18:18 ff.). The appeal of false prophets to Yahweh is illegitimate, for they have
received neither their commission nor their words from him (Deut. 18:20; Jer.
14:14 f.; 23:25; 29:9),
7. Philo, speaking in connection with Exod. 3:14 (LXX), and influenced by
Stoic philosophy, says that God is the Existent One; being belongs to him alone
as of right. But this cannot be uttered, and so God’s real name never reaches men.
God says to Moses, “For me, to whom alone belongs Being as of right, there is
absolutely no name which fits my nature” (Vit.Mos. 1, 75). To men came only the
name kyrios ho theos, the Lord God (Mut.Nom. 11 f.). Men can invoke God only
with the relative name of ‘“‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Abr. 51). For
Philo, in total opposition to the OT, God has no personal name. The words theos
God, and kyrios, Lord, according to Philo merely indicate powers in God: “‘Lord”’
the power of lordship and “‘God” the power of grace. Philo’s opinion that the
power of Being has many names is also Stoic (Som. 2, 354). But one must still
hallow even the purely relative names of God, which do not designate his essential
Being; one must beware of misusing, of blaspheming these names, and of using
awful and terrible names (Spec.Leg. 4, 40; 2, 8; Decal. 93 f.).
8. It is possible that Josephus, who was a priest, could have known the Heb.
name Yahweh, but he never uses it. He does not even use the Gk. kyrios, Lord,
which was used in Hellenistic Judaism to translate Yahweh. This shows the extent
to which, already in Josephus, fear of uttering the name of God had gone. Instead,
he uses onoma, and has a predilection for proségoria, address, appellation, title,
even where Yahweh’s name is under consideration. Thus he writes that on the
headband of the High Priest the proségoria, address, appellation, of God is en-
graved (Ant. 3, 7, 6; cf. Exod. 38:36 f.). In another place he speaks in the same
context of the onoma of God, to which Alexander the Great rendered worship
(Ant. 11, 8, 5). Thys oscillation between the two words can also be seen in his
rendering of Exod/ 3, where he adds that he is not allowed to say anything at all
about the name (Ant. 2, 12, 4 f.). According to Josephus, the name of God does
not dwell in the temple either, but only a portion of God’s spirit (Ant. 8, 4, 3).
Israel’s temple is the epdnymon of God, i.e. it bears God’s name, like coins which
are thus shown to belong to him, and like heathen temples which bear the names of
their gods (Ant. 16, 2, 3; 4, 8, 10). It does not necessarily mean that it was the name
of Yahweh when it says that they called on ‘“‘the awful name of God” (War 5, 10,
3).
9. The Qumran writings follow exactly the samc paths as the OT, as far as the
use of the name of God is concerned. Names figure largely in the War Scroll (cf.
1QM 2:6; 3:4, 13 ff.; 4:1-13; 5:1 ff; 11:2 f., 12:2; 13:7; 14:4, 8, 12; 18:6, 8) and
the Hymns (cf. 1QH 1:30; 2:30; 3:23; 9:38; 11:6, 25; 12:3; 17:20; 18:8).
According to Josephus (War 2, 8, 7), the Essenes had to swear, amongst other
things, to keep the names of the angels secret.
10. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. The account in Gen. 6 of the fall of the
angels occupied people’s imagination. In Eth.Enoch 6:7 it took the form that the
names of the “leaders of tens’’ (i.e. > angels) were given names. Heb. Enoch is
largely an angelology, a tract in which the names of innumerable angels are com-
municated. In 2 Esd. 7:132-139 seven names of God are mentioned: he is the
651
NAME
Compassionate, the Gracious, the Forbearing, the Generous, the Merciful, the
Noble, the Forgiving. The remarkable thought appears in Eth.Enoch 69:13-21
that the name of God, by which men swear, is itself the oath, and that that is how
the creation was called into being. The name of the Son of man (and thus his
person?) is pre-existent (Eth.Enoch 46:7 f.).
11. (a) Among the Rabbis the name is important in the teaching of tradition.
One may only pass on a doctrine or tradition if one names (b°sém, in the name)
the authority from whom one has received it (Aboth 6:6). With reference to the NT,
the expression /°sém, ““‘into”’ the name, is also significant. On the one hand, it is used
in a final sense, with the intention that something shall happen. A man may make an
offering [°sém hassém, “‘for the name of the name”’ (i.e. for Yahweh), i.e. one offers
a sacrifice to Yahweh. A freed slave takes a ritual dip in the bath “‘to the name of
the free man’’, in order to become a free man. A proselyte is circumcised ‘‘to the
name of the proselyte’’ to become a Jew. On the other hand, the expression is used
in a causal sense: e.g. /*°sém Sadmayim, “‘on account of the name of heaven’’, i.e. for
God’s sake (cf. Matt. 10:41; Mk. 9:42).
(b) The name of Yahweh is avoided if at all possible (cf. Josephus), to avoid
infringing the third commandment (Exod. 20:7; — Lord, art. kyrios). According
to one old story, after the death of Simon the Just (c. 200 B.c.) the priests discon-
tinued uttering Yahweh’s name in blessings (T.Sot. 13, 8). In the temple cult
Yahweh’s name was still used in the High Priest’s blessing on the Day of Atone-
ment; but in scriptural quotations the word Yahweh came to be replaced by sém,
name, in the teaching schools. So the tetragrammaton YHWH ceased to be used
and its pronunciation was forgotten. The consequence was that the name of God
became a secret name which was used as a means of magical power, particularly in
the piety of the lower strata of society. In addition to the existent name of God
composed of four letters, other such names were known, consisting of 13, 43 or
even 72 letters.
NT In the NT onoma occurs 228 times, most commonly relatively in Lk. (34 times
in the Gospel; 60 times in Acts) and Rev. (37 times). eponomazd, commonly
used in ancient writings, is found only once in the NT (Rom. 2:17), pseudonymos
only in | Tim. 6:20. onoma in the NT also means reputation (Mk. 6:14; Rev. 3:1)
and person (Acts 1:15; Rev. 3:4; 11:13).
1. Names of men and other beings. The names of the Twelve Apostles on the
foundation-stones of the new — Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14), and the names of the
twelve tribes of Israel on its gates (Rev. 21:12) proclaim the final unity of the old
and the new people of God. Jesus proves himself to be the Good — Shepherd by
calling his sheep by name and knowing them personally (Jn. 10:3). In giving his
—> disciples new names, he draws them in a special way into his service (Matt.
10:2 ff.; Mk. 3:16 ff.; Lk. 6:14 ff.). On the name of Peter — Rock, art. petros.
Mk. 3:17 mentions “James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James,
whom he surnamed Boanerges [Boanérges], that is,-sons of thunder.” Some MSS
apply the name Boanerges to all the twelve, but this is too weakly attested to be
likely. The word is probably an attempt to transliterate an Aramaic or Heb. phrase.
Boané- evidently represents b°né (sons of). The ending -rges.is not the ordinary
word for thunder, but it may represent Heb. rogez (agitation, excitement, raging;
652
NAME
cf. Job 37:2 of thunder); Aram. r°gaz (anger); or Heb. reges (throng; cf. Ps.
55:14[15]; in later Heb. commotion, vibration; cf. Aram. rigsa’, noise). The
Arabic word related to reges means thunder. Although J. Rendel Harris suggested
that the reference was to their being twins (Expositor 7, Series 3, 1907, 146 ff.;
ExpT 36, 1934-25, 139), the more likely explanation is to be found in the outbursts
that are related in Mk. 9:38 and Lk. 9:54. As Peter’s name means rock and thus
contains a promise, perhaps there is also the implied promise that their witness will
be as mighty as thunder (C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark,
1959, 131). The fact that the names of the disciples are written in heaven (Lk.
10:21) means that they belong to God and to his kingdom (Rev. 3:5). The new
name which the victor receives expresses his inalienable fellowship with Christ
himself (Rev. 2:17).
Evil spirits have names, too, which predicate something of their nature or power
(Mk. 5:9). Thus, the “beast”? in Rev. 13:1 (— Animal, art. thérion; — Antichrist)
bears blasphemous names, 1.e. he is given names and honorific titles which belong
to God or Christ alone. His name is contained in a — number (Rev. 13:17 ff.),
and his adherents also bear it (Rev. 13:17; 15:2). The name of the “‘great harlot”
(Rev. 17:1, cf. v. 3), “Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abomina-
tions” (Rev. 17:5), stands in contrast to the woman of Rev. 12 who bears the male
child and who is the mother of all the faithful (cf. 12:4 f. with v. 17).
2. The name of God. God’s name belongs with his — revelation: God as person
turns to the person of man. God reveals himself as the loving Father, in glorifying
his name in Jesus’ saving work (Jn. 17:12, 26). It accords with this that Jesus, and
he alone, reveals the name of God as the name of the Father to men (Jn. 17:6). In
Jn. 12:28 — “‘Father’’, “glorify” (—~ Glory) and “name” are closely bound together.
That the disciples are ‘“‘kept in the name of God”’ indicates that they live in the sphere
of an effective power, which protects them from ruin and unites them with each
other (Jn. 17:11 f.). The goal of the proclamation of the name of God as Father is
that the love of the Father for the Son is also to be found in believers (Jn. 17:26).
In these affirmations of John’s Gospel, and above all in those of the High Priestly
Prayer of Jesus (ch. 17), we have the christological interpretation of the OT
affirmations concerning the name of Yahweh. The Fourth Gospel thus picks up and
follows through the lines of the ancient biblical tradition, that God’s revelation is
bound to a personal name — to — Jesus Christ (cf. on this Matt. 11:27 and 28:18
with Jn. 3:35; 5:20; 13:3; 7:29; 10:15; 17:25).
Jesus thus acts in the name of, and on behalf of, God in fulfilment of his will
and as proof of his sonship (Mk. 11:19 f.; Jn. 10:24f.). At his parousia he will
come “in the name of the Lord’ (Matt. 23:39). When the name of God is con-
joined with that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit it assumes the character of com-
pleteness and fullness (Matt. 28:19); this is trinitarian thought, even if a precise
trinitarian formula is lacking (on this — God, art. theos NT 8). The first request of
the Lord’s Prayer concerns the hallowing of God’s name (Matt. 6:9; cf. Isa.
29:23; Ezek. 36:23; — Holy, art. hagios NT 1 (c)). In the — kingdom of God,
God’s name is no longer profaned through sin. God is asked in prayer to further
the hallowing of his name himself, and to bring in his kingdom. A man who
despises God’s will and commands, or a Christian slave who is disobedient to his
master is, in effect, slandering God’s name (Rom. 2:24; 1 Tim. 6:1). The beast in
653
NAME
Rev. 13:6 also reviles the name of God and his dwelling, as do those who suffer
under the plagues of the last days (Rev. 16:9).
3. The name of Jesus. (a) The significance of Jesus’ life and activity is evident in
his name (Matt. 1:21; —> Jesus art. /ésous; on Emmanuel in Matt. 1:23 — God,
art. Emmanouél). He bears the sublime name of — Son (Heb. 1:4 f.). His name is
“the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13; cf. Jn. 1:1). God’s name of — Lord also becomes
his name (Phil. 2:9 f.; Rev. 19:16). Above and beyond this, he bears a name which
he alone knows (Rev. 19:12), “cand the name by which he is called is The Word of
God’ (Rev. 19:13). The name “Jesus” can be replaced simply by “‘the name”’ (Acts
5:41; 3 Jn. 7; cf. the Jewish replacement of Yahweh by sém). The whole content
of the saving truth revealed in Jesus is comprised in his name (Acts 4:12; 1 Cor.
6:11). Belief in the name of the Son, i.e. belief in Jesus’ messianic mission (Jn.
3:18), is God’s command (1 Jn. 3:23; 5:13). Anyone who believes in his name
receives —> forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43; 1 Jn. 2:12), has eternal — life (Jn.
20:21; 1 Jn. 5:13) and escapes the judgment (Jn. 3:18). A Christian’s whole life is
dominated by the name of Jesus (Col. 3:17), whose glorification is the goal of faith
(2 Thess. 1:12).
The name of Jesus is the basis of the — proclamation to all nations (Acts 8:12;
9:16; Rom. 1:5). Because of the preaching of Jesus and his work, the authorities
at Jerusalem forbad the apostles to preach ‘‘on the basis of this name [epi to
onomati touto|” (Acts 5:17 f.; 5:28, 40). Faith and proclamation include confession
of the name (Rev. 2:13; 3:8) and readiness to suffer for his name’s sake (Matt.
10:22; 24:9). Faith and faithfulness to Jesus is the same as holding fast to his name
(Rev. 2:13; 3:8). The name of Christ contains the implication of glory, and | Pet.
4:14 declares: “If you are reproached for the name of Christ you are blessed,
because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you”’ (cf. Isa. 11:2). Whoever
calls on the name of the Lord belongs to the church (Acts 9:14; 1 Cor. 1:2) and is
saved (Acts 2:17—21; Rom. 10:13; cf. Joel 2:32). Christians were so called because
of this name (Acts 11:26; cf. 26:18; 1 Pet. 4:16). It is the “honourable name”
which is given to the followers of Christ (Jas. 2:7). One of the gifts of final per-
fection is that the victors will bear the name of the — Lamb (Rev. 3:12; 14:1; 22:4).
(b) The formula “in the name of Jesus”. God gives the Holy Spirit in the name
of Jesus (Jn. 14:26). Thanks are given in that name (Eph. 5:20). The nations place
their hope in it (Matt. 12:21; cf. Isa. 42:4). And in his name the congregation prays
(Jn. 14:13 f.; 15:16) — that is, according to his will and instruction, in order that
the commission may be fulfilled, which Jesus gave to his own. This is the reason
why their prayers are heard. Since the disciples are sent out by Jesus they are able
to act on behalf of him and in his power, performing miracles and acts of com-
passion (Lk. 10:17; Mk. 8:38 f.). After Easter, the name of Jesus continues to
maintain its power (Acts 3:6; 14:10). Name and “power” (— Might, art. dynamis)
are used parallel to one another (Acts 4:7; 16:18). Jesus himself gives help and is
present in his name (Acts 9:34), but not when unbelievers attempt to misuse it in
magical exorcisms (Acts 19:13-16; — Magic). Such statements show that the OT
manner of speaking of the name of Yahweh has been transferred to Jesus and his
name. Because he was called by Jesus, Paul was able to admonish (2 Thess. 3:6;
dia, by or through him, | Cor. 1:10), and give judgment “‘‘in the name of Jesus’’, as
one commissioned and authorized by him (1 Cor. 5:4; 2 Thess. 3:6).
654
NAME
(c) Baptism “in the name of Jesus’. The baptismal formula eis to onoma, “‘in
[to] the name’’, corresponds with the final sense of the expression from the Rab.
schools /°sém (see above OT 6). The literal meaning is that, — baptism symbolically
assigns the person baptized to Christ for forgiveness of sins (Acts 8:16; 19:15; 1
Cor. 1:13, 15; cf. Matt. 28:19). The same meaning can be intended where baptism
epi, to, or en, in the name, is spoken of (cf. Acts 2:38; 10:48 with LXX Jos. 9:9;
2 Sam. 22:50; Sir. 47:13; where the original Heb. text has /°sém, which would
normally be translated eis, to: but LXX renders en or epi). The fullness of Christ’s
saving work is contained in his name (as Yahweh’s saving work was in his) and is
present in the church. This is symbolized by the individual’s baptism, since he has
been caught up into Jesus’ death and resurrection (Rom. 6:1—11; Col. 2:12; cf. 2
Cor. 4:10).
4. The vb. onomazo, derived from the noun, occurs in the NT only 9 times. The
name and service of an — apostle are traced back to Jesus (Lk. 6:13). A man who
bears the name of brother, but lives unworthily of it, is to be denied fellowship
(1 Cor. 5:11). The congregation is so detached from sin that it is not even to be
named in it, i.e. it is not even to be spoken about (Eph. 5:3; cf. 2 Tim. 2:19). God
names every family in heaven and on earth and so is the Father of all (Eph. 3:15;
on this passage see 6 below). eponomazo, name after, give a nickname, give a second
name, occurs in the NT only at Rom. 2:17: “If you call yourself [eponomazé] a
Jew’. Here Jew is a title of honour, the heir to the legacy described in vv. 17-20.
Paul attacks the inconsistency of claiming to be a Jew and at the same time coun-
tenancing sin. The Jews stand under the divine judgment like the Gentiles. The vb.
is also found in the v./. of Lk. 6:14D.
5. pseudonymos is attested from Aesch. and means bearing a false name. In the
NT it occurs only at 1 Tim. 6:20: “Avoid godless chatter and contradictions of
what is falsely called knowledge [tés pseudoénymou gnoseos].’’ Paul here warns
against a movement which gives the lie to its name and leads from faith into error
(cf. v. 21). H. Bietenhard
6. Eph. 3:14 f. probably means that God is “‘the Father [patér] from whom every
fatherhood [patria] in heaven and on earth is named”, the paronomasia being
deliberate: “‘every patria is so named after the patér’ (G. Schrenk, patria, TDNT
V 1017). God is the archetypal Father; all other fatherhood is a more or less
imperfect copy of his perfect fatherhood. M. Barth, in a full comment on this
passage, mentions this among four possible interpretations, but concludes that,
because of the lack of evidence for patria in the sense of an “‘abstract ‘fatherhood’ ”’
as early as this, “‘this beautiful exposition can at best be considered a homiletical
corollary to 3:15” (Ephesians 1-3, Anchor Bible, 1974, 379-384). But this “unique
sense” (Arndt, 642) of patria is not abstract; it is not far removed from its classical
sense of “‘lineage”’ (cf. Moulton-Milligan, 498). According to Clem.Alex., in what
seems to be a reference to this passage, epi ton poiétén ton theon pasa anatrechei
patria, “every lineage [or fatherhood] runs back to God the maker’”’ (Strom. 6, 7).
See the excellent treatment by H. Schlier, who argues that God is here called the
Father of all fatherhood, as he is called the creator of all things in v. 9, in order to
emphasize, against gnostic misrepresentations, that he is Father not only as
redeemer but also as creator —creator of angelic patriai in heaven (cf. Eth.En.
655
NAME/ NATURE
69:2 f.) as well as of human patriai on earth (Der Brief an die Epheser, 1957, 167 f.).
He mentions the earlier statement of this interpretation by G. Estius, In omnes D.
Pauli epistolas ... commentarii, 1858-59, ad loc. F. F. Bruce
—»> God, — Jesus Christ, — Magic
(a). R. Abba, ‘““Name’’, DB III 500-8; J. Barr, ““The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament’’,
BJRL 52, 1969-70, 11-29; J. B. Bauer, ‘“‘Name’’, EBT II 611 ff.; H. Bietenhard, onoma etc.,
TDNT V 242-83; B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel, SBT 37, 9-30; O. Eissfeldt,
‘“‘Renaming in the Old Testament’, in P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars, eds., Words and Mean-
ings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, 1968, 69-80; G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Names, 1896; and “‘Name’’, HDB III 478-85; G. Foucart, D. S. Margoliouth, A. T. Clay,
J. D. Ball, J. Moffatt, G. B. Gray, L. H. Gray, T. Harada, I. Abrahams, C. J. Billson, S. H.
Langdon, E. W. Brooks, ‘“‘Names’’, ERE IX 130-78; L. Hartman, “Into the Name of Jesus’’, N7S
20, 1973-74, 432-40; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., ““Name’’, and ‘“‘Names, Proper’, ZPEB IV 360-70; A. F.
Key, ““The Giving of Proper Names in the Old Testament’’, JBL 83, 1964, 55-9; H. Kosmala, “In
My Name’’, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 5, 1966-67, 87 ff. ;G.van der Leeuw, Religion
in its Essence and Manifestation, 1964* (see index); J. A. MacCulloch, ‘“Nameless Gods’’, ERE
IX 178-81; J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Name, 1959; J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life
and Culture, l-II, 1926, 245-59; G. von Rad, “‘Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology and the Priestly
Document’s ‘Kabod’ Theology’’, Studies in Deuteronomy, SBT 9, 1953, 37-44; and Old Testament
Theology, I, 1962, 197-87; H. H. Rowley, Dictionary of Bible Personal Names, 1968.
(b). A. M. Besnard, Le Mystére du Nom, 1962; H. Bietenhard, ‘“‘Der Name Gottes in der Bibel’,
in Das Wort Sie Sollen Stehen Lassen, Schadelin Festschrift, 1950; H. A. Brongers, ““Die Wend-
ung b’sem YHWH im Alten Testament”, ZAW 77, 1965, 1 ff.; G. Delling, Die Zueignung des
Heils in der Taufe. Eine Untersuchung zum neutestamentlichen “Taufen auf den Namen’’, 1961;
F. Dumermuth, ‘“‘Zur deuteronomistischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen’’, ZA W 70,
1958, 59-98; O. Eissfeldt, ‘““Jahwename und Zauberwesen’’, Kleine Schriften, II, 1963; J. Fichtner,
‘“Name’’, EKL II 1499 ff.; O. Grether, Name und Wort Gottes im Alten Testament, BZAW 64,
1934: M. von Griinwald, Die Eigennamen im Alten Testament, 1895; W. Heitmiller, Jm Namen
Jesu, 1903; S. Herrmann, ‘‘Der altestamentliche Gottesname’’, EvTh 26, 1966, 281 ff.; B. Jacob,
Im Namen Gottes, 1903; Mandelkern, II, 1349-1539 (for list of OT proper names); E. Nestle,
Die israelitischen Eigennamen nach ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung, 1976; M. Noth, Die
israelitischen Personnamen, 1928; W. Philipp, ‘Name Gottes”, RGG? IV 1298 ff.; C. A. Schmitz,
K. Baltzer, B. Reicke, ““Namenglaube’’, RGG? IV 1301 ff.; J. J. Stamm, ““Namengebung im Alten
Testament”, RGG? IV 1300 f.; R. de Vaux, “Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y etablir son nom”,
in Das ferne und nahe Wort, Festschrift L. Rost, BZAW 105, 1967, 219-29.
Nature
$601 dvaic (physis), nature, condition, kind, dvaikdc (physikos),
| $ | natural.
CL physis is a word from the Gk. world of ideas. Attested since Homer, it became
a key concept among the Pre-Socratic philosophers in considering the nature
of the world, and similarly the Sophists in the question of the foundation and basis
of law.
The noun physis comes from the vb. phyo, to grow (trans. and intrans.), which is
attested as early as Mycenaean GK. Its root is connected with Lat. fu- and with Ger.
bauen (build). The root phy- indicated being or presence.
1. physis denotes source, commencement, origin, descent (e.g. Hdt. 7, 134),
and also the lineage of adults or of children (Aristot., Met. 1014°16; e.g. kata
physin hyion, “his son in the line of descent’’, Polyb., 3, 12, 3). Aristotle (Met.
656
NATURE
1014° 22) regards it as the primal substance compounded from the elements. (On
Aristotle see J. C. Owens, “‘Matter and Predication in Aristotle’’, in J. M. E. Morav-
cik, ed., Aristotle: A Collection of Critical Essays, 1968, 191-214.)
2. From the basic understanding of presence and existence due to growth, physis
denotes the natural condition, quality or state (e.g. of the air, of blood, or the
physical features of a land, Hdt. 2, 7); outward form and appearance (Hdt. 8:38);
and stamp or character, e.g. of Solon who was philodémos tén physin, “‘patriotically
minded” (Aristoph., Nubes 1187). The sexes (Diod.Sic., 16, 26, 6; Plato, Leg.
944d, 770d), the sex organs and characteristics (Diod.Sic., 32, 10, 7; Hippocrates,
Gynaikeia 2, 143) can also be designated by physis. When set alongside ethos,
custom, and /ogos, reason, it means (human) nature (Aristot., Pol. 1332? 40) or the
imperishable — and perishable — nature of existence of the gods (Diod.Sic., 3, 9, 1).
ta prota kata physin, “ the first according to nature’, is Zeno’s description of the
mental and spiritual endowment of man. One can read of the koiné physis, the
common moral nature of all human beings (Chrysippus in Plut., De Stoicorum
Repugnantiis 9, p. 1035c). The famous quotation from Aristot. accords with this:
Man is, by virtue of his natural make-up, ‘‘a political creature [politikon zdon]”’
(Aristot., Pol. 1253 3). physis can be used both for the bodily physique of indivi-
duals, and for the institutions and constitutions of states (Isoc. 12, 134).
3. physis can further denote the — creation, the world of nature, e.g. the creatures
who live in the sea (Soph., Antigone 345), and also the individual genera and
species within nature (Plato, Rep. 429d).
4. physis is also the efficacious generative power, the charm which causes plants
to appear and (e.g.) hair to grow (Hippocrates, Peri physios paidiou 20). physis, as
power, and hexis, as bodily constitution, are thus placed alongside each other
(Hippocrates, Peri diaités oxedn [notha] 43). This nature is endowed with reason
and determined by its end; it produces nothing without purpose or in vain (Aristot,
Cael. 291733). Aristotle mentions nature and God in the same breath (ibid.,
271°33), distinguishing nature (pAysis) both from tyché, fate, to automaton, that
which takes place of its own accord, and techné, skill (Met. 107078). Aristotle,
in fact, developed a complete theory of natural things, of the physeion. For Ionic
philosophy, nature is the growth of plants and animals, both as phenomenon in
itself, and as the power of growth.
5. physis also stands for the regular order of nature. The unity formulated in
the law is contrasted with what has come about or grown in nature. (Antiphon
Sophista, 44, A, I, 32). In the natural order of things, all men have come to be in a
similar way, despite all the differences between Gks. and barbarians (Antiphon
Sophista, 44, B, II, 10). By means of hair, nature distinguishes in its own way
between the sexes (Epict., Dissertationes 1, 16, 10). Nature has powers and
elements (Corp.Herm. 1, 8). Nature is self-sufficient and strong, as compared with
tyché, fate, which is unstable (Democritus, 176). Men’s lives are determined by the
twin forces of nature and laws (Dem., 25, 15). This order fixes the natural end of
life (Plut., Vit., Comparatio Demosthenis et Ciceronis). Nature, fate and necessity
are thus in control of one’s existence (Philodemus, De Pietate 12).
Among the Stoics, physis became a god of the universe, as in the famous quota-
tion from Marcus Aurelius, 6 physis, ek sou panta, en soi panta, eis se panta, “‘O
Nature, from you comes everything, in you is everything, to you goes everything”’
657
NATURE
(4, 23). Of importance for the Stoic ethos is the assertion of Chrysippus (SVF III,
5) that one should akolouthos té physei zén “‘live by following [by keeping close to]
nature.’ The distinction between nature and law as two different entities by which
one’s life is determined was sharply perceived at an early date in Gk. thought.
Reference may be made to the Archelaus-fragment (Diels-Kranz, II, 45, 6): kai to
dikaion einai kai to aischron ou physei, alla nomo, “‘Justice and disgrace exist not by
nature but by law,” i.e. it falls into the sphere of law, not of nature. Nature is
here conceived of as that which is in harmony, good in itself and resting, and thus
distinguished from the field of morals and ethics.
oT |. There is no Heb. equivalent in the OT for physis. The Hebrews lacked the
Greek conception of nature. This is connected both with the fact that all
existing things are referred to the — creation or to the Creator God, and also with
the stronger historical thought of the OT. In the LXX physis occurs only in Wis.
(three times) and in 3 and 4 Macc.
(a) It is used in the sense of endowment and character (alongside virtue and
communal living, 4 Macc. 13:27); it can indicate a quality, such as the power of
love for one’s children (4 Macc. 16:3), and also for instance (with reference to
material objects) the fire-extinguishing property of water (Wis. 19:20b). physei, by
nature, fundamentally, all men are foolish (Wis. 13:1).
(b) 4 Macc. 5:25 speaks of the law being adapted to our nature: ‘‘for believing
our Law to be given by God, we know also that the Creator of the world, as a
Lawgiver, feels for us according to our nature. He has commanded us to eat the
things that will be convenient for our souls, and he has forbidden us to eat meats
that would be contrary.”
(c) In 4 Macc. 15:25, where physis stands alongside genesis, creation, and
Dhiloteknia, filial love, it denotes the regular order of nature. In 3 Macc. 3:29 it
means created beings, the whole world of creation, including man. In 4 Macc.
1:20, linked with physeis pathdn, growths of instinct, human characteristics are in
mind. But in Wis. 7:20 it refers to species of living beings. Nature is also Spoken
of as seen as a dispenser of good things: “Truly it is folly not to enjoy innocent
pleasures, and it is wrong to reject Nature’s favours” (4 Macc. 5:8).
2. Philo was probably the first to take over the word consciously. But at the
same time he modified it, in order to utilize it to expound the Jewish faith in its
strength and breadth.
(a) It goes without saying that for Philo God stands in the foreground. physis
is now no longer itself the origin or the creative power; it is an agent of the divine
activity. God has bound bodies into a context, that of nature (in this case, vital
energy), and that of the — soul and man’s rational soul (Deus Imm. 35). This vital
energy consists of powers which vary and increase (ibid. 37). The soul is a vital
energy which has assumed to itself conceptional potential and motion (Leg.All., 2,
23).
(b) This physis which belongs to God is that which brings forth, e.g. all men
(Decal. 41). It is immortal (Sacr. 100). It teaches the division of time into day and
night, waking and sleeping, and it creates space, which remains confined to three
dimensions (Decal. 25). It reveals man to be the one who disposes over plants and
658
NATURE
animals; it has given man speech (Spec.Leg. 2, 6; Rer. Div.Her. 302) and sexual
relations (Abr. 248).
Philo, in fact, ascribes to physis much of what, from the OT point of view, is the
—> work of God. Nature, like wisdom, according to Philo, is a power which
participates in God’s work of creation. For Philo, nature is God, tris makaria
physis, ‘‘thrice-blessed nature” (Spec.Leg. 4, 123; cf. Abr. 87), but the converse is
not true. God himself stands outside material nature (Migr.Abr. 192) in so far as
nature is understood as the totality of natural phenomena and forces.
(c) Philo interprets the regular order of nature in the same way. He can describe
the nomos, the > law, as the orthos physeos logos, “the true word of nature”
(Omn.Prob.Lib. 62), because the law follows nature (Virt. 18), and because the
prescriptions of the law are in agreement with nature (Virt. 5). They are themselves
sealed with nature’s own seals (Vit.Mos. 2, 14). That is why one must follow nature
and its developments (Spec.Leg. 2, 42; similarly Omn.Prob.Lib. 160). Nature
ratifies the law: this is the sole foundation on which the world is built.
(d) physis is used to designate the being and natural condition of things, e.g. of
the elements (Som. 1, 33). It can also refer to the being of God (Plant. 91), or the
(twofold) properties of light (Abr. 157).
(e) physis in either the masc. or the fem. (Spec.Leg. 2, 27) can denote the nature
of man, which is compounded from mortal and immortal elements (Praem. 13).
Philo regards nature as capable of receiving virtue (Post.C. 150); conscience
makes use of it, because it hates evil and loves good (Decal. 87). To nature belong
godliness and love of mankind (Abr. 208). Philo thus likes to link physis with
askésis and mathésis, practice and learning (Som. 1, 1967; Praem. 65).
(f) The formula ‘“‘by nature’’, “‘contrary to nature’, “according to nature’’ is
found very frequently. The body is by nature (physei, or ek physeods) firm (Op.
Mund. 36). A regulation can be in accordance with nature (kata physin, Aet.
Mund. 34). Things can be compelled to come together contrary to nature (para
Physin, Aet.Mund. 28).
(g) Finally, physis denotes the world of creation, including the high and pure
(Leg.All. 3, 162), the mortal and the immortal (Decal. 101), the earthly and the
perishable (Leg.All/. 2, 89), the divine and the human (Spec.Leg. 2, 225), the
rational and the irrational (Fug. 72).
3. Josephus has similarly taken over and adopted in large measure this Gk.
concept to his Jewish outlook. physis in Josephus stands for:
(a) The condition and characteristics of animals and humans (War 2, 8, 1), and
of natural self-love (Ant, 5, 5, 4; 5, 6, 3). It is almost synonymous with character.
Josephus can speak of physis which is chrésté, dikaia, eusebés, a nature which is
good, righteous and religious (Ant. 9, 13, 1). The opposite is an unjust, evil dis-
position (Ant. 10, 5, 2). It can also denote the being of God (Ant. cf. Preface with
4,8, 26; 8, 13, 5; 10, 8, 3; Ap. 1, 224) or of all things, ton holon physis (Ant. Preface;
3, 6, 4), or of the elements (Ant. 3, 7, 7).
(b) Natural qualities. Thus suicide is foreign to the common nature of all living
beings (War 3, 8, 5). It can also mean the natural situation of a place (e.g. of the
citadel of Alexander Janneus, War 7, 6, 2), and bodily physique (Ant. 6, 9, 1).
(c) The regular order of nature and its laws (War 3, 8, 5), juxtaposition of divine
and natural law (Ant. 4, 8, 48).
659
NATURE
(d) Nature as a whole (Ant. 1, 3, 2), the whole created world (War 7, 5, 5),
natural instincts (Ant. 7, 7, 1). Thus a person can be active by nature (War 1, 10,
5), or naturally freedom-loving (War 4, 4, 3). A place can lack a natural harbour
(War 3, 9, 3). On the other hand, sexual deviations are para physin, contrary to
nature (Ap. 273, 275). |
NT The majority of instances of physis in the NT is to be found in Paul or more
precisely in Romans (7 times; also 2 instances of the adj. physikos); the word
occurs otherwise only in isolated passages: in | Cor., Gal., Eph., Jas. and 2 Pet.
It is found with the following shades of meaning which correspond to the previous
usage of the word.
1. The use of the word in Gal. 2:15, physei Ioudaioi, ‘‘Jews by birth’, is like that
of Philo and Josephus, meaning descent, extraction. Rom. 2:27 corresponds with
this: hé ek physeos akrobystia, lit. “the uncircumcision by nature’’, i.e. those who
remain physically uncircumcised from birth: the line of descent is the reason why
someone has not received circumcision. But Paul also says that such a man fulfils
the law and so performs God’s will (by nature?) without belonging to — Israel.
(On the interpretation of this passage — see further 2 below.)
God will not spare the wild olive shoot (the Gentile Christians) if he did not
spare the branches which belonged to the rich — olive tree kata physin, by nature,
in the natural way (Rom. 11:21). This use of physis is found once more in the
same parable: the wild olive shoot is cut from the wild olive tree to which it
belongs kata physin, by nature, and grafted para physin, contrary to nature, into
the cultivated olive tree. Paul’s argument a minore ad maius concludes: how much
more can the olive branches which belong to the rich olive tree by nature be grafted
back (again) into their own olive tree (Rom. 11:24). Paul is here following Hellen-
istic linguistic usage, such as we met in Philo and Josephus, with reference to the
distinction between Jews and non-Jews. The heathen are, as sinners and as trans-
gressors of the first commandment by nature, by descent (physei) children of wrath
(Eph. 2:3; cf. Wis. 13:1). But this situation is ended by the — grace of Christ in
the lives of those whom God has made alive (Eph. 2:5-—10).
2. physis stands further for the regular order of nature, which determines the
distinction between the sexes. God has given up the idolaters, so that they have
exchanged natural (physikén) sexual intercourse between man and woman for
unnatural (para physin, Rom. 1:26). But there are heathen who do not have the
Torah but who do what the law demands physei, by nature, in so far as they live in
accordance with their own nature. It is not as if they read off the law from the
natural order — rather this reveals itself in them to be a power which brings its
own realization, as their lives and actions show; their deeds prove the law of
morality to be at work in their lives. As those who fulfil the law, they become a
law to themselves (Rom. 2:27), they fulfil the law which they themselves are by
nature under the protection of the natural order. We are dealing here (see above
OT 2 (c)) with the typically Stoic thought of the moral law founded in nature, which
was taken over by Judaism and applied to the Torah. In this way the Mosaic law
becomes the universal perfect expression of the moral law founded in nature (H.
Lietzmann, HNT 8, excursus on Rom. 2:14—16). Law and universe are in common
agreement and harmony (cf. Philo, Op. Mund. 3, Abr. 5). ({Ed.] For an alternative
660
NATURE
interpretation of this passage which sees it as a description of what actually has
come to pass among Gentile believers in fulfilment of the promise of the new
covenant [Jer. 31:31 ff.] > God, art. theos, NT 4 (b).)
Paul’s prescription concerning coiffure is thus not based only on the scriptures,
nor solely on Haggadah, but also on Stoic thought: nature teaches that it is
degrading for a man, but a source of pride for a woman, to have long hair (1 Cor.
11:14; + Head).
3. The word occurs in 2 Pet. which can even speak of believers as partakers of
the divine nature: “by which he has granted to us his precious and very great
promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the
world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature [theias
koinonoi physeos|’ (2 Pet. 1:4). This is seen as a result of the — “‘knowledge of
our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8; cf. v. 3) and > “election” (1:10). The thought is
evidently not that of a metamorphosis into quasi-deity, for the results of this
participation are expressed in positive human qualities. It is rather that to be truly
human one needs an enabling which comes from God himself. The teaching is
comparable with Paul’s teaching on the — new — creation and the teaching in
John on being born again (— Birth, art. gennad). As with being born again in Jn.
3:3, 5, participation in the divine nature and its outworking in life are prerequisite
for ‘‘entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’’
(2 Pet. 1:11). In contrast to the divine nature stands the use of the adj. physikos
which is applied to man in his natural state. The result is the diametrical opposite
in both quality of life and outcome: “But these, like irrational animals, creatures
of instinct, born to be caught and killed [aloga zoa gegennémena physika eis halosin
kai phthoran], reviling in matters of which they are ignorant, will be destroyed in the
same destruction with them” (2 Pet. 2:12). The corresponding adv. occurs only
once in the NT in a passage which may be dependent on the latter passage: ““But
these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they
know by instinct [physikos] as irrational animals do, they are destroyed” (Jude 10).
The thought of 2 Pet. 1:4 may be compared with the formulation of Athanasius:
“For he became man that we might become divine [autos gar enénthropésen, hina
hémeis theopoiéthomen]’ (De Incarnatione 54, which was written some time before
A.D. 323). Here the thought is not that man is transformed into the deity, but that
man is enabled to share in immortality through the incarnation of the Word of
God.
4. Jas. 3:7 twice uses physis in the correct Gk. sense of “‘kind’’: “‘for every kind
of beast [pasa gar physis thérion] and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed
and has been tamed by humankind [fé physei té anthropiné].” The thought again
corresponds with the conception of a regular order of nature. The point of the
allusion is to emphasize by contrast the fact that “‘no human being can tame the
tongue — a restless evil, full of deadly poison”’ (v. 8).
5. physis, then, is a typically Gk. and, in particular, a Stoic, concept. It was taken
up by Hellenistic Judaism and thus also found a place in Christian thought. It was
used mainly by Paul, though it never became a major theological concept. His use
of it points in two apparently opposing directions. On the one hand, it emphasizes
the gap between Jews and non-Jews. On the other hand, it indicates what they have
in common, and in this sense the Stoic usage is particularly marked. G. Harder
661
NATURE/ NECESSITY
—> Adam, — Animal, — Bird, — Creation, — Fish, — Fruit, — Man, — Seed,
Harvest
(a). A. J. L. Adams, ‘“‘The Law of Nature in Greco-Roman Thought’, Journal of Religion 25,
1945, 97-118; H. H. Barnette, ‘““Towards an Ecological Ethic”, Review and Expositor 69, 1972,
23-35; J. Barr, ‘“‘Man and Nature — The Ecological Controversy and the Old Testament’’, BJRL
55, 1972, 9-32: J. W. Beardslee, The Use of PH YSIS in Fifth-Century Greek Literature, Dissert-
ation, Chicago, 1918; G. Bornkamm, ‘‘The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1-3)”, Early
Christian Experience, 1969, 47-70; R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature, 1945; C. H. Dodd,
‘‘Natural Law in the New Testament”, New Testament Studies, 1953, 129-42; P. Evdokimov,
‘Nature’, SJT 18, 1965, 1-22; B. Gartner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, Acta
Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 21, 1955, 73-116; E. R. Goodenough, By Light Light,
1935; R. M. Grant, Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought, 1952;
W. A. Heidel, ‘“‘Peri physeds. A Study of the Conception of Nature among the Pre-Socratics”’,
Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 45, 1910, 77-133; R. W. Hepburn,
‘“‘Nature, Philosophical Ideas, of”, in P. Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967, V,
454-58; H. KOster, ‘““NOMOS PHYSEOS. The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought’’, in Fest-
schrift for E.R. Goodenough, 1968, 521-41; and physis etc., TDNT UX 251-77; A. Lovejoy, ““The
Meaning of Physis in the Greek Physiologers”’, The Philosophical Review, 18, 1909, 369-83; and
The Great Chain of Being, 1936; H. E. W. Montefiore, ed., Man and Nature, 1975; C. F. D. Moule,
Man and his Nature in the New Testament, 1964; E. C. Rust, Nature and Man in Biblical Thought,
1953; and ‘“‘Nature and Man in Theological Perspective’, Review and Expositor 69, 1972, 11-22;
S. Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics, 1959; N. B. Stonehouse, The Areopagus Address, 1949 (re-
printed in Paul before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies, 1957, 1-40).
(b). G. Bornkamm, ‘‘Gesetz und Natur. Rom. 2, 14-16”, Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum,
1963?, 93-118; H. Diller, “‘Der griechische Naturbegriff’’, Neue Jahrbiicher ftir Antike und deutsche
Bildung 2, 1939, 241-57; F. Heinimann, Nomis und Physis. Herkunft und Bedeutung einer Anti-
these im griechischen Denken des 5. Jahrhunderts, Schweizerische Beitrdge zur Altertumswissen-
schaft 1, 1945; H. Leisegang, ‘‘Physis’’, Pauly-Wissowa XX 1130-64; and ‘“‘Physis” in Lexikon
der Alten Welt, 1965; S. Lyonnet, ‘‘Lex naturalis et iustificatio Gentilium’’, Verbum Domini 41,
1963, 238-42; R. Muth, ‘““Zum Physis-Begriff bei Platon’”, Wiener Studien 64, 1950, 53-70;
H. Patzer, Physis. Grundlegung zu einer Geschichte des Wortes, 1940; W. Philipp, ‘“‘Naturphilo-
sophie”, EKL II 1516 ff.; M. Pohlenz, Der hellenische Mensch, 1947; ‘‘Paulus und die Stoa’’,
ZNW 42, 1949, 69-104; ‘‘“Nomos und Physis’’, Hermes 81, 1953, 418-38; and Die Stoa, I, 1959?,
II 1964; B. Reicke, ‘“‘Nattirliche Theologie nach Paulus’’, Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 22-23, 1957-58,
154-67; K. H. Schelkle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, I, 1968; O. Thimme, PHYSIS, TROPOS,
ETHOS, Dissertation, Gottingen, 1935; W. Trillhaas, “Im welchem Sinn sprechen wir beim Men-
schen von Natur?” Z7K 52, 1955, 272 ff.; and ‘“‘Natur und Christentum’’, RGG? IV 1326 ff.; R.
Walker, ‘‘Die Heiden und das Gericht”, Ev7h 20, 1960, 302-14; W. Wieland, Die aristotelische
Physik, 1962, 231 ff.
Necessity, Must, Obligation
The Gk. approach to life was largely shaped by the consciousness of a necessity in
existence and events which is subject to the laws and norms of fate. The impersonal
verb-form dei (it is necessary) is the most comprehensive expression for this life.
It reflects the sense of a determining constraint, no matter whether it was exerted
by magic or laws, by men or by gods. The general concept which expresses this
feeling of having been consigned to fate (a situation which not only embraces
human existence, but, in personifying a universal principle, also dominates the
lives of the gods themselves) is ananké. By contrast with the words which are
associated with fate and nature the vb. opheilo originally belonged to the legal
662
NECESSITY
sphere; it expressed initially one’s legal and economic, and then later one’s moral,
duties and responsibilities to the gods and to men, or to their sacrosanct regulations.
Whereas opheilé also expresses human and ethical responsibility in the NT, the
typically Gk. concepts of dei and ananké could only be taken over with some
modification which personalized and re-interpreted them so that they express the
will of God.
a: avayKy (ananké), compulsion; avayKaioc (anankaios),
avayky = ten ; fs
necessary; avayxa¢w (anankaz6), compel, force;
avayKact@s (anankastos), by compulsion.
cL All words based on the word-stem anank- (from an [ank] with reduplication)
denote in varying gradations every form of outward or inward pressure which
is exerted on men.
For the Greeks ananké was the power which determined all reality, the principle
which dominated the universe. At various times men ascribed a divine character
to it; Plato (Leg. 818c) in fact ranked it higher than the gods. Man is under a
constraint because of his natural being; the final limitation of his existence by
death is also part of this compulsion (cf. W. Grundmann, 7DNT I 344 f.).
oT In the OT the naturalist outlook of the Gk. world is replaced by a historical
one. ananké translates several Heb. words which denote the afflictions and
distresses of illness, persecution, enmity etc. which were often taken by Israelites
to indicate God’s alienation from them. They include sar (Job 7:11; 15:24; 36:19)
and sarah (Job5:19; 27:9; 31[30]:7; Prov. 17:17) both meaning distress; masdq
(1 Ki. 22:2; Ps. 119[118]:143) and m®stiqah (Pss. 25[24]:17; 107[106]:6, 13, 19, 28;
Zeph. 1:15), meaning stress, distress. In the last resort, it is Yahweh alone who can
save men from ananké (Ps. 25[24]:17), and even lead a person into it (Job 20:22;
cf. Jer. 9:[15]14, la‘*ndh; 15:4 z°wa’adh or za‘*wah). He will raise up the great
ananké on the day of his wrath (Zeph. 1:15), a conception which had powerful
effect on the thought of post-exilic Judaism. ananké occurs without Heb. equiva-
lent in Tob. 3:6; 4:9; Ep.Jer. 37; 2 Macc. 6:7; 15:2; 3 Macc. 1:16; 4:9; 5:6; 4
Macc. 3:17; 5:13, 16, 37; 6:9, 24; 8:14; 22, 24; 9:6.
NT In the NT the noun ananké occurs 17 times, the adj. anankaios 8 times and the
vb. anankazo 9 times. All are predominantly part of the Pauline vocabulary.
The vb. anankazo in the NT serves in both act. and pass. to describe a compulsion
or a being compelled which does not rest on the use of outward force (Matt. 14:22;
Acts 28:19; Gal. 2:3). Lk. 14:23 is undoubtedly not thinking of the use of force.
The adj. anankaios refers once to close friends in the sense of those to whom one is
bound (anankaious philous, “‘close friends’’, Acts 10:24 RSV), but is otherwise
used predicatively meaning necessary. In Acts 13:46 this necessity is to be under-
stood analogously to the Lucan dei (Lk. 24:7, 26; Acts 1:16; 21; > dei NT 2) as an
exposition of the concept of salvation-history which is sustained by a belief in the
providence of God governing the processes and events of history. The noun
ananké can be used in everyday language in place of the vb. to denote compulsion:
kai eché anankén exelthon idein, ‘‘and I must go out and see it” (Lk. 14:18; cf. 1 Cor.
7:37). In Phlm. 14 and 2 Cor. 9:7 constraint is contrasted with free will. The law
involves all kinds of legal necessities (Heb. 7:12; 9:16, 23), of which one (the daily
663
NECESSITY
sacrifice which the High Priest offers for himself and the people) is no longer
necessary for Christ on account of his one unique sacrifice (Heb. 9:25 f.).
The thought of providence in the history of salvation (— dei) is found in pass-
ages such as Matt. 18:7 (“‘it is necessary that temptations come [ananké gar elthein
ta skandala|’’); Rom. 13:5 (“one must be subject [dio ananké hypotassesthai]’’);
and 1 Cor. 9:16 (“necessity [ananké] is laid on me’’). Without being confined to
any particular phase of salvation-history, ananké is used finally almost as an alter-
native to thlipsis (— Persecution art. thlipsis) and to describe the tribulations which
continually recur and break in upon believers from outside (1 Cor. 7:26; 2 Cor.
6:4; 12:10; 1 Thess. 3:7). It is against this background that Lk. 21:23 is to be
understood: “For great distress [ananké] shall be upon the earth.” Lk. omits the
relative clause of Mk. 13:19 which in fact uses thlipsis. ananké here does not mark
the end of the aeon, only that of + Jerusalem (Lk. 21:20), and with this the times
of salvation for the Gentiles begin (Lk. 21:24). R. Morgenthaler
Osi dei (dei), it is necessary, one must; oipa (moira), fate.
CL dei (attested since Homer) and deon estin, it is necessary, one must, both
denote a compulsion of some undefined sort. Since the impersonal verb-form
does not name the originator of the compulsion, the precise meaning is dependent
on the context and on whatever force the necessity evokes. In Gk. thought the
coercive power can be someone’s will (Polyb., 7, 5, 2), the state laws (Xen., Mem.
1, 2, 42) or a spell (K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, I, 4, 2255 ff.). But by
far the most powerful and comprehensive force is Fate (moira) which determines the
necessities of human, historical and cosmic life (Appian, Libyké 122, 578:
Carthage just had to be conquered; cf. Corp.Herm., 11, 6a: everything always has
to happen in every place; — ananké). Even the gods are subject to moira. This led,
notably in the later stages of Hellenism, to an anxiety-filled and fatalistic approach
to life.
oT The Heb. OT does not have any word corresponding to the Gk. dei. The reason
for this is that the Gk. conception of a necessity which works in the manner
of fate is foreign to Israel. The OT picture of God is a complete contrast, conceiving
him as a personal will powerfully active in history, who claims for himself the lives
of individual men. Through the introduction of the notion of dei into the LXX the
OT understanding of God was influenced by Hellenism, but on the other hand, dei
was itself transformed by the underlying OT idea of the necessity of the divine
will. Alongside its non-theological usage (e.g. 2 Ki. 4:13 f.) the word is found
particularly in the context of the law and of apocalyptic expectation. In Lev. 5:17
LXX the cultic prohibitions are called entolai kyriou, hén ou dei poiein, ““commands
of the Lord concerning those things which one must not do.” The impersonal
formulation makes it possible for the personal claims of Yahweh’s will — the Heb.
text uses the 2nd person form — to retreat into the background (cf. Prov. 22:14a).
dei in the LXX most commonly renders the Heb. infin. (construct) and prep., “in
order to’’. In this way originally final or future statements receive a slightly deter-
ministic re-interpretation. This happens, for example, in the apocalyptic texts of
664
NECESSITY
Dan. (e.g. 2:28: God has revealed what must take place [LXX:dei]), whereas the
Aram. text reads “what will take place” (cf. 2:29). Another good example is 2:45
where the LXX rightly translates ta esomena, “‘the things that shall be’’, whereas
Theodotion writes ha dei genesthai, ‘‘the things that must happen.”
NT In the NT the Hel. Gk. dei and deon estin are used with surprising frequency
(102 times), in the main in the Gospels, and especially in Lk. (44 times). But
the words are freed from their traditional Gk. associations even more decisively
than in the LXX. By being connected with God’s saving work they are charged
with new meaning. The concept of dei plays a distinct rdle in three contextual
areas: (1) eschatological — apocalyptic expectation; (2) the salvation history inter-
pretation of the way of Jesus; and (3) the context of the Christian life.
1. Apocalyptic contexts. dei as an apocalyptic term refers to the future cosmic
drama which will inevitably break in upon the world. But it is not a matter of
some unalterable fate. Rather, it is a necessity determined by the divine will. In the
so-called eschatological discourses war, hunger and a time of great distress are
announced: this must all take place (dei genesthai) (Mk. 13:7 par. Matt. 24:6,
Lk. 21:9; cf. the dei genesthai of Dan. 2:28) as must the universal preaching of the
—> gospel (Matt. 24:14 par. Mk. 13:10) before the end comes (— Goal).
The beginning of Rev. (1:1) is also based on Dan. 2:28: “‘The revelation of
Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take
place” (cf. 4:1; 22:6). With this ‘“‘must”’ of — judgment and salvation belong the
individual acts of the final apocalyptic drama: the enemies of God’s witnesses
must be killed (11:5), the monster of the last days (the seventh emperor) must
remain a little while (17:10), and —- Satan must be loosed for a little while (20: 3),
before the ultimate victory of the — Lamb (22:3).
Paul too is aware of eschatological necessity, such as the final judgment (2 Cor.
5:10), the transformation at the general — resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:52 f.)
and the reign of Christ ‘‘until he [God] has put all his enemies under his feet”’
(1 Cor. 15:25; cf. Ps. 110:1 and the whole eschatological context vv. 23-28).
2. Jesus’ life and way as salvation history. Through his use of dei Lk. expresses
in numerous ways the fact that Jesus’ way was not the result of chance or accident,
but that the saving will of God has made history in the life of Jesus into salvation
history. A divine necessity expressed by dei requires that the twelve years old Jesus
must be in his Father’s house (Lk. 2:49). In his interpretation of the law Jesus’
dei conflicts with the dei of the Rabbis (Lk. 13:14, 16, the healing on the — Sabbath
day). Justice and love are the divine dei of the Torah (11:42). Jesus’ preaching is
directed by the divine will (4:43; 13:33). So too his road to suffering is expressly
designated as a divine “‘must” (9:22; 17:25). It is Lk.’s underlying concern not to
depict Jesus’ death as the tragic failure of a prophet but to present the death and
resurrection of Jesus as necessary saving acts of God; “‘“Was it not necessary that
the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (24:26; cf. 24:7;
Acts 3:21). The Scriptures must be fulfilled (24:44). The will of God manifested
and recorded in the OT attained in Christ its complete fulfilment and exposition;
this is what Lk. intends to say through his use of the divine dei of the way of Jesus.
In the other Gospels dei refers primarily the death of Jesus as a divine necessity
(Mk. 8:31; Matt. 16:21; Jn. 3:14). Matt. and Jn., like Lk., understand it as a
665
NECESSITY
necessary fulfilment of the Scriptures (Matt. 26:54; Jn. 20:9). ‘““The whole will of
God for Christ and for man is comprehended in this dei as Luke conceives it”’
(W. Grundmann, TDNT II 23).
3. dei in the life of the Christian. The divine dei covers not only the past history
of Jesus and future eschatological events; it also embraces the present life of Chris-
tians. Especially in Acts are men implicated in God’s saving activity. Paul is not
the only one to be led in the plan of God from the days of his conversion to his
journey to Rome (Acts 9:6, 16; 19:21; 23:11; 27:24). God’s saving will applies to
all men. “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we
must be saved”’ (Acts 4:12).
Jn. 3:7 designates regeneration as a divine “‘must’’ for men (— Birth). Not only
the way to salvation, but the Christian life itself is subordinated to the will of God
dei is found, finally, in the paraenetical material of the NT: in the exhortation to
persistent prayer (Lk. 18:1; Jn. 4:24; Rom. 8:26), to conduct that is pleasing to
God (1 Thess. 4:1), to discipleship (2 Thess. 3:7) and to peaceableness (2 Tim.
2:24). E. Tiedtke, H.-G. Link
ee odetAw@ (opheild), owe, be indebted to; ddeiAnua (ophei-
| saad | léma), what is owed, a debt; ddetAétyc (opheiletés),
debtor; ddedov (ophelon), O that, would that, if only; 6de1Ay (opheilé), obligation.
CL 1. The word-group formed from the stem opheil- belongs originally to the
sphere of law. opheild, attested since Mycenaean Gk., means: (a) when linked
with an obj., to owe someone something, e.g. money, a loan (cf. Egyptian sources
in BGU III, 846, 16; IV, 1149, 35); and (b) with an infin., to owe in the sense of
being indebted (Plato, Leg. 4, 717b). An opheiletés is (a) a debtor (Plato, Leg. 5,
736d); (b) someone who is under an obligation to achieve something (not found in
this sense in the LXX). opheilé (rare, and not in the LXX) and the more common
opheiléma (in the LXX only in Deut. 24:10; 1 Macc. 15:8) denote a debt, par-
ticularly of a financial nature, ophe/on, originally an aorist participle of opheilé with
the addition of estin (is), became the set expression for the optative “‘O, that’’,
“‘would that’, “if only” (cf. Epict., Dissertationes 2, 22, 12).
2. Alongside financial there are also moral obligations in respect of people
or of state laws. Thus a culprit is often punished by being required to pay com-
pensation to the injured party (Plato, Cra. 400c: until he has made the necessary
payments). Infringement of divine regulations and thanks which must be rendered
in return for benefactions of the gods also make men debtors, in requiring from
them some cultic penance or act. Thus in Plato, Phaedo 118, the dying Socrates
says: ““We owe Asclepius [the god of healing] a cock.’’ Correlates and formations
from opheiléd thus contain both the negative component of debt and the positive
one of obligation.
OT 1. Inthe LXX opheilé occurs with striking rarity (12 times in the OT; 10 in the
Apocrypha). It is used either in the optative formula ophelon, which commonly
renders the Heb. particle /i or IW” (Num. 14:2; 20:3), or in connection with the
law of debt, as the equivalent of Heb. nasa’, lend (what is lent becomes what is
owed, Isa. 24:2) and héb, a debt (Ezek. 18:7). In Deut. 15:2 loans are regulated
666
NECESSITY
in such a way that it was characteristic for sacral law in Israel, as distinct from
other nations of the ancient world, that monetary debts were not permanently
enforced for life. Every seven years they were to be remitted by the creditor (Heb.
§*mittah, Deut. 15:1 f., 9; 31:10; LXX aphesis, remission of debt). The stipulation
concerning pledges in Deut. 24:10 (opheiléma) has a pronounced humanitarian
character (cf. 1 Macc. 10:43; 13:39, remission of state taxes).
2. The OT does not make use of the concept of legal debt in order to depict
obligation to Yahweh. This was due to the fact that man’s relationship with God
in the OT was not yet conceived as a business agreement between business partners,
but as obedience to the will of Yahweh (— dei).
The situation is different in later Judaism, where opheilo renders the late Heb.
word héb, which means: (a) to come off badly (from what is demanded of one),
i.e. to be guilty, liable to punishment; and (b) (positively) to be indebted. opheiléma
translates h6b or h6baéh, which now comes to refer to arrears in payment, a debt,
obligation, and to sin. Sin is plainly no longer now conceived of as intrinsic dis-
obedience, but as an outstanding debt, forwhich one can compensate by appropriate
accomplishments (cf. SB I 421, 800; IV 11, 14). The Qumran texts, significantly,
do not reveal a knowledge of this kind of language.
NT In the NT opheilo is found linked with the dat. of persons and objects in the acc.
(commonly in Matt. and Lk.), and still more often with the infin. (chiefly in
Paul and in other epistles). The word-group is lacking in Mk., the Catholic Epistles
(except 1 and 3 Jn.) and Rev. opheildé is used in the main in two particular sets of
contexts: (1) to designate men’s relationship with God (in the Gospels, especially in
Matt.); (2) as a paraenetical concept (in the epistles, especially in Paul).
1. From a formal point of view Jesus spoke of men as debtors to God, just as
Judaism did. The difference lies in the fact that, unlike Judaism, Jesus took the
business relationship to be not the reality, but a parable of men’s relationship to
God. Consequently the concept of debt (opheiléma) is linked by Jesus not with
achievements or demands concerning payments of arrears, but with — forgiveness
(aphesis).
(a) Both these differences are made clear in the parable of the unmerciful servant
(Matt. 18:23-35). The picture of the creditor (daneistés) and the debtor (opheiletés)
reveals men’s dependence on and responsibility to God, who (as Matt. emphasizes
again and again) will settle accounts with his servants (Matt. 18:23). The fan-
tastically high sum of money that is stated to be owed (10,000 talents, i.e. about
$10,000,000 expresses the nature of the debt: it cannot be paid. Every attempt
to repay the debt, even at the expense of the lives of the debtor and of his family,
is from the outset an illusion. Only through the compassion of the creditor can
the debt be remitted (cf. the context with Deut. 15:2). On the other hand, the
parable reveals men’s responsibility (“should not [ouk edei] you have had mercy”’
v. 33; — dei). By virtue of the great debt that has been remitted by God, men
ought to forgive one another the laughably small debts which by comparison their
““fellow-servants” owe them, instead of insisting on their legal rights. In v. 28
the 100 denarii is 0.00001% of the 10,000 talents! (On this parable see J. D. M.
Derrett, ““The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant’, Law in the New Testament,
1970, 32-47.)
667
NECESSITY
(b) A certain parallel is offered in the parable of the two debtors, which Lk.
has woven into the narrative of the sinful woman (Lk. 7:41-43), in order to point
out the connection between the greater or lesser degree of love and the greater or
lesser degree of debt forgiven. Compare also the falsification of debts in the parable
of the unjust steward (Lk. 16:5-7). (See further J. D. M. Derrett, op. cit., 48-77.)
(c) Only in Matt. 6:12 does opheiléma correspond to the Rab. hdb, meaning
debt (elsewhere in the NT replaced by hamartia; — Sin). The fifth request of the
Lord’s Prayer stresses the correspondence between divine forgiveness of debts
and human readiness to — forgive. Human forgiveness is neither a pre-condition
for God’s forgiveness, nor can it make any claim to it; rather, it is an echo and a
command of the forgiveness received (cf. the paraenetic expansion in 6:14 ff.).
“The aorist of Mt. (aphékamen) expresses the seriousness of the desire for recon-
ciliation by the completed act, whereas the present of Lk. (aphiomen) expresses it
by the constant readiness to forgive’ (F. Hauck, TDNT V 563; cf. Matt. 6:12 with
Lk. 11:4).
2. If opheilé in the Gospels has the primarily negative meaning of being in debt,
in the Epistles it predominantly denotes the positive sense of responsibility which
arises out of one’s belonging to Christ. In Rom. 13:8 Paul uses the double meaning
of opheiléd to exhort his readers to the — love which is at the same time a task and
a debt to one’s neighbour which can never be paid. In Rom. 15:1 ff. the connection
between ethical obligation and the foundation work of Christ becomes particularly
clear: ““We who are strong ought [opheilomen] to bear with the failings of the weak,
and not to please ourselves. ... For Christ did not please himself.” 1 Cor. 11:7
and 10 speak of the duty of discipline in the congregation (— Head); 2 Thess.
1:3 and 2:13 of the duty of gratitude for the spiritual growth of the congregations;
2 Cor. 12:14 of responsible parenthood; 1 Jn. 3:16 of the sacrifice of one’s life;
and 2 Cor. 4:11 of mutual brotherly love. 1 Jn. 2:6 summarizes the individual
exhortations, ‘““He who says he abides in him ought [opheilei] to walk in the same
way in which he walked.” Heb. uses opheild (2:17; 5:3) in parallel to dei and >
prepei, in order to underline the divine purpose in what befell Christ in the
divine work of salvation.
3. The optative particle ophelon is found only in Paul (1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Cor. 11:1;
Gal. 5:12) and in Rev. (3:15). opheilé denotes monetary debt in Matt. 18:32,
civil dues in Rom. 13:7, and the command to marital sexual intercourse in | Cor.
7:3. opheiletés is a debtor (Matt. 6:12), and one who is under obligation (e.g. Paul
in Rom. 1:14) to world mission. In Gal. 5:3 it expresses the obligation to keep the
whole law if one practises — circumcision. By contrast, Rom. 8:12 speaks of be-
lievers who “‘are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh,”’ and Rom.
15:27 of the debt in Christian giving. E.. Tiedtke, H.-G. Link
| Tl PETE 7 pew (prepo), be fitting, seemly or suitable.
CL & OT prepo is found in cl. Gk. from Homer onwards most frequently in the
impersonal forms eprepen, it was fitting, and prepei, it is fitting. Whereas dei
and opheild express necessity and obligation, prepod expresses that which is proper
and appropriate. It is found in the LXX in Pss. 33(32):1 (for n@’weh); 65(64):1 (for
668
NECESSITY/ NEw
dimiyyah); and 93(92):5 (for na@’ah in the piel). In post-canonical literature it is
found without Heb. equivalent in Sir. 33:28 (30:27); 32(35):3; 1 Macc. 12:11;
3 Macc. 3:20, 25; 7:13, 19. It occurs also in several variant translations of Aquila,
Symmachus and Theodotion.
NT In the Gospels it occurs only in Matt. 3:15 in Jesus’ reply to the protestations
of John the Baptist at Jesus’ desire to be baptized: “‘Let it be so now; for thus
it is fitting [prepon estin] to fulfil all righteousness” (— Baptism; — Fullness, art.
plerod; — Righteousness). In discussing the question of the veiling of women in
worship, Paul asks: “Judge for yourselves, is it proper [prepon estin] for a woman
to pray to God with her head uncovered ?”’ (1 Cor. 11:13; — Head). In the paraen-
etical passage Eph. 4:3 asserts: ““But immorality and all impurity or covetousness
must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints [kathos prepei
hagiois|.” The Pastoral Epistles give direction for appropriate conduct for women
and the Christian teacher. The women should adorn themselves ‘“‘by good deeds,
as befits [ho prepei] women who profess religion” (1 Tim. 2:10). Titus is urged to
“teach what befits [ha prepei] sound doctrine”’ (Tit. 2:1). Finally, Heb. makes two
observations on the appropriateness of the way Jesus acted. ‘‘For it was fitting
[eprepen| that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons
to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering”
(Heb. 2:10). “For it was fitting [eprepen] that we should have such a high priest.
holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens”
(Heb. 7:26). The former passage is concerned to show the identity of Christ with
men; the latter with the difference between him and sinful men. The common factor
of all these instances of the word is the absence of external constraint and absolute
necessity. In each case the person concerned could have acted otherwise. On the
other hand, righteousness and the exigencies of the situation make the conduct
specified not only appropriate but imperative. C. Brown
(a). W. Grundmann, anankazo etc., TDNT I 34447; and dei etc., TDNT II 21-25; F. Hauck,
opheild etc., TDNT V 559-66; E. Kasemann, “‘A Pauline Version of the ‘Amor Fatt ”’, in New
Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 217-35.
(b). E. Fascher, ““Theologische Beobachtungen zu dei”, in Neutestamentliche Studien fiir Rudolf
Bultmann, BZNW 21, 1954, 228 ff.; M. Pohlenz, To prepon, Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften zu Gottingen, 1933, 53-92; H. Preisker, ““Mensch und Schicksal in der romischen Stoa
und im Neuen Testament’’, Forschungen und Fortschritte 25, 1949, 274 ff.
New
New and old are correlative and contrary ideas. In temporal terms that which is
neos, new, young and previously non-existent stands over against that which was at
the — beginning (arché). palaios (—~ Old, art. palai), old (with the negative overtone
of obsolete, worthless, and unserviceable), is materially distinguished from kainos,
new in the qualitative sense of something previously unknown, unprecedented,
marvellous. In the course of time the differences of meaning between neos and
kainos became blurred, even to the point of occasional synonymity. But the NT has
significantly used kainos with its more qualitative sense in order to give expression
669
NEW
to the fundamentally new character of the advent of Christ. The qualitative differ-
ence between old and new comes to light most clearly in the NT contrast between
the old (— Old, art. palai, NT 2 (b)) and the new man (— art. kainos NT 2 (c)).
xamvee Kalvog (kainos), new; KQLVOTHS (Kainotés), newness;
| Kalvic@ (kainizo), renew; Kalvow (kainod), make new;
EyKalvic@ (enkainizo), make new, consecrate; dvaKalvow (anakaino6d), renew;
avakaiva@aic (anakainosis), renewal.
CL kainos is derived from the root gen, turn out fresh (cf. Lat. recens), and denotes
that which is new in its own way. Derivations include: kainotés, newness;
anakainosis, renewal (first used in Koine Gk.); kainiz6 (also enkainiz6 and ana-
kainizo), renew; and kainoo (also anakainoo), use for the first time, to make new.
In secular usage kainos denotes that which is qualitatively new as compared with
what has existed until now, that which is better than the old, whereas — neos is
used temporally for that which has not yet been, that which has just made its
appearance. But the longer these words were used, the less strictly was the conceptual
differentiation maintained.
oT 1. The LXX usually translates Heb. hadas by kainos, indicating in daily secular
usage something new, something previously not there (e.g. Exod. 1:8, a new
king; Deut. 20:5, a new house; Jos. 9:13, new wine-skins; 1 Ki. 11:29, a new
cloak).
2. kainos finds its theological place chiefly in the eschatological message of the
prophets, who bring into question Israel’s previous experience of salvation in
history and announce a new and saving divine activity in the future. This new
move of Yahweh’s consists, according to Jeremiah, in the establishment of a new
— covenant (Jer. 31 [LXX 38]: 31 ff.: diathéké kainé), in contrast to the covenant
at Sinai, in which Yahweh will put his. will in Israel’s heart, in order to bring
about a new obedience among his people. Ezekiel makes a very similar promise of
a new —> Spirit and a new — heart, which Yahweh will create within man himself
(Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26). Isa. 43:18 f. (NEB) presents the programmatic and
antithetical formulation of “Cease to dwell on days gone by and to brood over
past history. Here and now I will do a new thing”’ (cf. Isa. 42:9; 48:6). He under-
stands Yahweh’s new activity in leading Israel back out of the Babylonian exile
as new — creation which will embrace the nation and the whole created order
(Isa. 43:16-21). Isa. 65:17 f. proclaims the creation of a new — heaven and a new
— earth (Isa. 65:17 f.). The “new thing” which is awaited and ‘promised in the
eschatological proclamation of the prophets as Yahweh’s future act reaches from
the inner parts of man himself right to the universal dimensions of a new world.
The Israelite covenant community responds to both the experienced and expected
saving deeds of Yahweh in the new song which is sung aloud in the Psalms (33:3;
40:3; 144:9; 149:1 ff.).
NT 1. (a) The NT also follows the secular usage of kainos. It occurs in the sense of
unused (Matt.9:17; 27:60; Mk. 2:21; Lk. 5:36; Jn. 19:41), unfamiliar,
interesting (Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19, 21) and novel (Matt. 13:52; 2 Jn. 5).
(b) But everything in the NT which is connected with Jesus’ saving work is also
670
NEw
characterized as new; a new — covenant (Matt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25;
2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8, 13; 9:15), a new > commandment (Jn. 13:34; 1 Jn. 2:7, 8),
a new — creation (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), the new existence of — life in the >
Spirit (kainotés, newness, Rom. 6:4; 7:6), the new — man (Eph. 2:15; 4:24; cf.
anakainoo, renew, 2 Cor. 4:16; Col. 3:10), a new > heaven and a new — earth
(2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1), a new — name (Rev. 2:17; 3:12), the new > Jerusalem
(Rev. 3:12; 21:2), a new — song (Rev. 5:9; 14:3).
2. Leaving secular usage aside, the following features emerge from an investiga-
tion of theological usage.
(a) Most important is the use of kainos with diathéké (— covenant), in both the
Synoptic and Pauline traditions of the Last Supper, in the words spoken over the
cup: “This cup is the new covenant [kainé diathéké] in my blood” (1 Cor. 11:25;
cf. Lk. 22:20). In Mk. 14:24 and Matt. 26:28 only the Koine-texts have added
kainé to diathéké (— Lord’s Supper). The words signify that the — blood, or the
—> death, of Jesus is the basis of the new covenant. This is an evident link with the
promise of Jer. 31:31 ff. Heb. develops the theme of the new covenant further,
contrasting the imperfect old covenant of Sinai with the perfect new one (Heb.
8:6, 7). The quotation from Jeremiah 31 :31—34 is explained thus: “In speaking of a
new [kainén] covenant he treats the first as obsolete [pepalaidken tén protén]’ (Heb.
8:13). Again and again the statements of Heb. circle around the newness of this
covenant (9:15), which can also be called the second (8:7), a better (8:6) or an
eternal covenant (13:20). Through Jesus’ death and mediating work ‘“‘those who
are called”’ are in him to “receive the promised eternal inheritance” (9:15).
Paul interprets the new covenant as a covenant of the Spirit in opposition to the
old covenant with its written code (2 Cor. 3:6). ““We serve in the newness [kainotéti|
of the Spirit and not in the oldness [palaiotéti] of the letter’? (Rom. 7:6).
(b) The Synoptics use kainos from time to time with the same meaning as neos
in order to distinguish the new which is an integral part of the appearance of Jesus
from the old already in existence, as, for instance, in the parables of new wine in
old wine-skins and new patches on an old garment, where neos and kainos are used
synonymously (Mk. 2:21 f.). It is the same when Mk. 1:27 depicts the alarming
impression which Jesus’ teaching created with the words “‘a new teaching full of
authority [didaché kainé kat’ exousian].’’ The nature of the newness is characterized
by its contrast with the casuistic Rabbinic method of teaching (Mk. 1:22), by its
authoritativeness, and by its power to effect what it says (as the context of the
healing of the spirit-possessed man shows).
(c) Paul, in Gal. 6:15, designates God’s saving act in the cross of Christ as a
new creation (kainé ktisis; cf. v. 14), and sets it in opposition to the legalistic way
of salvation advocated by those who said that God must be honoured by fulfilling
his law which meant that — circumcision was obligatory for all male believers.
For Paul God’s saving act is something fundamentally new. The new creation
of God embraces not only humanity (1 Cor. 8:6) but the whole creation (Rom.
«8:18 ff.; cf. Isa. 43:18 ff.).
In 2 Corinthians 5:17 Paul declares: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a
new creation. The old has passed away, behold the new has come [héste ei tis en
Christo, kainé ktisis. ta archaia parélthen, idou gegonen kaina]’ (RSV). Although
671
NEW
the word ktisis here can mean creature (cf. RSV mg), it more frequently means —
creation. It may also be noted that the words “‘he is” are absent from the Gk. which
has no vb. at this point. C. K. Barrett translates the verse: ‘“‘A further consequence
is that if anyone is in Christ, there is a new act of creation: all old things have gone,
behold new things have come into being” (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians,
BNTC, 1973, 162). Barrett links the verse with vv. 14 f. and sees vv. 16 and 17 as
parallel, being negative and positive statements of the same truth (op. cit., 173).
He regards the phrase “in Christ” not as mystical but as eschatological, *‘a trans-
ference by faith in Christ, who experienced the messianic affliction and was raised
from the dead as the firstfruits of the resurrection, from the present age into the age
to come.” As such it is “‘a new act of creation’’, analogous to the original creative
act by which the world came into being. Ktisis, therefore, refers not to the believer
in the first instance, but to the creative act of God. Its meaning is essentially the
same as that in Gal. 6:15, and it takes up Paul’s earlier thought of God’s new
creative act in Christ in 2 Cor. 4:6: “For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine
out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God in the face of Christ” (cf. Gen. 1:3).
Barrett points out that the idea of parallels between God’s original creation and
final act of redemption was familiar in Judaism (ibid.). These parallels go back at
least as far as Isa. 51:9 ff. and 54:9 f., and the same book contrasts the old and the
new as Paul does here (Isa. 42:9; 43:18 f.). On the rabbinic discussion of new
creation (b*riyydh h*dasah) see further W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism,
19557, 119 f.; SB II 421 ff.; If 519; E. Sjoberg, ‘““Wiedergeburt und Neuschép-
fung in palastinischen Judentum’’, St7h 4, 1950, 44-85; — Baptism, art. baptizé
oT 3. Thus Rabbi Simon (fl. A.D. 280) said that not everyone who wishes to say a
Psalm may do so; rather it-is-certain of anyone to whom a miracle has occurred and
said a Psalm, that his sins have been forgiven and he has become as a new creature
(Midrash Ps. 18 §6 (697). Barrett sees a basic difference between Paul and rabbinic
thought on the new creation. For the rabbis the emphasis falls on the new creature,
whereas Paul is concerned with the new act of creation. He thinks it unlikely that
Paul was borrowing a rabbinic expression, and in any case it cannot be demonstrated
that the expression was current in Paul’s day. He also finds unconvincing the
attempts to relate Paul’s thought to that at Qumran. Nor is there any concrete
evidence for thinking that Paul is drawing on a baptismal tradition here.
In Gal. 4:5 Paul expresses this new reality in terms of adoption. This is not a
matter of gaining some new psychological or ethical quality, or of making a new
resolution. It entails a daily process of renewal: ““Though our outer nature [ho exo
hémon anthropos, \it. our outer man] is wasting away, our inner nature is being
renewed [anakainoutai] day by day.” This takes place through the creative and re-
creative power of the Spirit given by Christ “in the newness of the Spirit [en
kainotéti pneumatos|’ (Rom. 7:6; cf. Tit. 3:5).
The existence of the new creature involves a new way of life. Since the new life
does not exist on or derive from the natural plane, it is hidden with Christ in
God (Col. 3:3). Those who enter upon it need the apostolic exhortation to hold
fast to their new life and to put on the new man: “‘Now that you have discarded
the old nature with its deeds and have put on the new nature, which is being
constantly renewed [anakainoumenon] in the image of its Creator and brought to
672
NEw
know God... put on the garments that suit God’s chosen people” (Col. 3:9, 10,
12 NEB; cf. Eph. 4:23 f.; Rom. 12:2). The imperative does not invalidate the in-
dicative; rather, the concealment of the existence of the new creation is itself the
basis for the energetic imperative to the new way of life (cf. Gal. 5:25). It is in the
dialectic of indicative and imperative, gospel and law, gift and task, that, according
to Paul, the new life of the Christian moves. It is lived in the unavoidable tension
between dedication to the existence of the new creation and appropriation of the
new man (cf. G. Bornkamm, “Baptism and New Life in Paul (Romans 6)’’, Early
Christian Experience, 1969, 71-86).
The vb. anakainoo, renew, occurs in the NT only in Paul in the two passages
already noted (2 Cor. 4:16; Col. 3:10). In both cases it is in the passive. The
corresponding noun anakainosis, renewal, is not known outside Christian litera-
ture and is found only twice in the NT. In Rom. 12:2 believers are exhorted to let
this renewal affect their social attitudes: ‘‘Do not be conformed [syschématizesthe]|
to this world but be transformed by the renewal [metamorphousthe té anakainosei]
of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and
acceptable and perfect”’ (— Form, arts. schema and morphé). Tit. 3:5 sees salvation
grounded in renewal: “‘he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteous-
ness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in
the Holy Spirit [anakaindseos pneumatos hagiou]’’ (— Birth, art. palingenesia).
(d) John’s Gospel speaks of the new-»commandment, kainé entolé, of
brotherly love. “I give you a new commandment: love one another; as I have loved
you, so you are to love one another’’ (13:34 NEB). The commandment is new for
the reason Jesus was the first to reveal fully what — love means (cf. 15:13; 1:17).
Here, too, the imperative to love is grounded in the indicative of the love of Jesus.
Because the Christian community has experienced the reality of the self-sacrificial
love of Jesus it is freed and summoned at the same time, to transform concern for
self into concern for others (cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 525).
It is not a question of an ethical principle, but of becoming new in love by virtue
of the new love of Christ.
In 1 John the point at issue is also that of brotherly love (2:7 ff.). The command-
ment is called, strikingly, old and new at once (2:7 f.; cf. 2 Jn. 5). The exposition
is obviously directed against the schismatic desire for innovation. By “‘old’’ one
should understand the beginning of the Christian life: “the old commandment is
the word which you have heard” (2:7). As to content, it is simply the new love for
one’s brothers that is meant though the christological foundation of Jn’s Gospel is
not explicitly expounded (2:8-11).
(e) The vb. enkainizo occurs only in Heb. Arndt (214) suggests that its meaning
in Heb. 10:20 is ‘““open a way” (cf. 1 Sam. 11:14; 1 Clem. 18:10; Ps. 51:10 [50:12]).
Thus believers have confidence to enter the sanctuary “‘by the new and living way
which he opened for us [enekainisen] through the curtain, that is, through his
flesh’ (RSV). On the other hand, the meaning of inaugurate, dedicate is suggested
for Heb. 9:18. RSV has “‘ratified’’: ‘““Hence even the first covenant was not ratified
[enkekainistai] without blood” (RSV; cf. Deut. 20:5; 1 Ki. 8:63; 2 Chr. 7:5; IG
XIT 5, 712, 58).
(f) kainos plays an important role in the visions of Revelation. Those who are
victorious over their earthly temptations will receive a white stone with a new name
673
NEw
(2:17; cf. 13:12). The white stone (pséphon leukén) may have been the white stone
used by jurors to signify acquittal (Ovid, Metamorphoses 15, 41); a token entitling
one to free entertainment at royal assemblies (Xiphilin., Epit.Dion., p. 228), hence
that which admitted one to the heavenly feast; the precious stones which in rabbinic
tradition fell with the manna (Yoma 8); the precious stones on the breastplate of
the high priest (Exod. 35:27; 39; cf. 28:28 f.); the white stone regarded as a mark of
felicity (cf. Pliny, Ep. 6, 11, 3); or a combination of several of these images (cf.
R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, ICC, I, 1920, 66). The new name would
not be that of the bearer, but the one giving authority to the bearer. The context
of the vision of Rev. 1 suggests that the new name is that of Christ as Lord (cf.
1:8, 10, 12-20; with Phil. 2:11). For he is the one who has conquered and has
assumed Lordship (cf. 2:17a with 5:5 ff.; 22:13, 20). It is he that makes the new
reality possible. The heavenly community of the redeemed will strike up a new
song in honour of the Lamb who was slain (5:9; 14:3). When the great and final
apocalyptic battle has been fought out against Satan, and all the enemies of the
Lamb have been defeated, the new — Jerusalem will arise (21:2), and a new
heaven and a new earth will be created (21:1; cf. 2 Pet. 3:13). Then there will be no
tears, suffering, pain or — death (21:4). In accordance with the expectations of the
new in the OT the new element which entered the world with Jesus Christ stretches
from the realization of the new man right to the universal hope of a new heaven
and a new earth. The One who sits on the throne of the new Jerusalem says:
‘Behold, I make all things new” (Rev. 21:5).
H. Haarbeck, H.-G. Link, C. Brown
a véoc (neos), new, young, fresh; vedtnc (neotés), youth;
| eos VEWTEpPOG (nedteros), younger, a younger person;
veddutoc (neophytos), newly planted; avavedw (ananeod), renew.
CL neos, from the Indo-Germanic *neuos, derived from the adv. nu, now, has the
temporal sense of belonging to the present moment, and so new, not previously
existent, just now appearing, in short: new, young.
1. Secular Gk. uses neos as an adj. (attested since Mycenaean Gk.) for things,
generally in a temporal sense, new, fresh (cf. Hdt. 5, 19, 2, nedtera prégmata,
revolution); and in a fig. sense, occasionally of persons with some recently gained
honour or position (cf. Aesch., PV 955, 960, hoi neoi theoi, the new gods). neos
is most commonly used, chiefly in the comparative, to designate the age-range of
youths from 20 to 30 years old as distinct from the presbyteroi or gerontes, but
also now and again as a noun to denote an inexperienced person, a novice. There
is no strict differentiation between neos and the generally synonymously used
adjs. — kainos and prosphatos (originally a sacrificial term; pros and phatce [a
verbal adj. cognate with phonos, slaughter], just slaughtered, and therefore fresh).
2. The Hellenistic and Roman world was fond of linking neos with the name
of some god such as Asclepius or Dionysus in their emperor-cults. The ruler,
revered as God, was to be celebrated as the visible representation of the divinity.
In gnostic and Manichaean religious language one could also speak of the new,
674
NEW
i.e. the redeemed man. But this betrays a dependence on early Christianity (cf.
Hippol., Haer. 6, 35, 4; J. Behm, TDNT IV 897).
oT 1. The LXX uses eos chiefly in the comparative form nedteros with the meaning
of younger, a younger person. nedteros is so used for the following Heb. words:
s@ir, young(er), small(er) (e.g. Gen. 19:31, 34f., 39); gatan and qaton, small,
young(er), youngest (36 times altogether; e.g. Gen. 9:24; 42:13, 15, 20, 34; Gen.
43 and 44 passim); na‘ar, young man (e.g. Jdg. 8:20; 2 Chr. 13:7; Job 24:5);
yeled, child (2 Chr. 10:14). In Num. 28:16 the LXX renders dikkirim, first-fruits,
by ta nea (the new things) and translates Abib (abib), the month of the ripening of
the corn, as the month of the first-fruits (mén ton neon; Exod. 13:4; 23:15; 34:18;
Lev. 2:14; Deut. 16:1). meos is used to translate hadas, new, only 4 times (Lev.
23:16; 26:10; Num. 28:26; Cant. 7:13[14]); otherwise the regular equivalent is
kainos.
2. In the Apocrypha and inter-testamental literature neos comes increasingly to
denote youthful inexperience, immaturity and susceptibility (cf. Tob. 1:4; Sir.
9:10; 42:8; 1 Macc. 6:17; 11:54, 57; 13:31; 4 Macc. 2:3; 6:19).
NT 1. The instances of neos in the NT, though not so frequent as those of — kainos,
are scattered in numerous writings. meos occurs 7 times in Lk., twice eachin Matt.
and Mk., once in Jn., 8 times in Paul (6 of them in the Pastorals), and once each
in Heb. Jas. and Acts. With neos the temporal aspect is dominant, marking out the
present moment as compared with a former: new dough (1 Cor. 5:7), freshly
prepared and not yet blended with — leaven; new wine, fresh wine, still fermenting
(Matt. 9:17, par. Mk. 2:22, Lk. 5:38); a new man, God’s new creation (Col. 3:9 f.)
the new covenant, God’s new design as contrasted with the old covenant broken
by men (Heb. 12:24). neos, when meaning young (Tit. 2:4), is mainly used in the
comparative in the NT (Lk. 15:12; Acts 5:6; Jn. 21:18; 1 Tim. 5:1 f.; Tit. 2:6;
1 Pet. 5:5); neotés accordingly means youth (Mk. 10:20; Lk. 18:21; Acts 26:4;
1 Tim. 4:12). In Lk. 22:26 ho nedteros means the youngest. The vb. ananeoomai
occurs only in Eph. 4:23 where it signifies the “being renewed”’ of the inner nature,
as does anakainoomai in Col. 3:10 (see below 5, and kainos NT 2 (c)). Heb. 10:20
speaks of the new (prosphatos, newly consecrated) way to the sanctuary of God
which Christ has first already travelled through his suffering, death and resurrection
and which he has thus inaugurated (enekainisen) and made accessible to us (>
kainos, NT 2 (e)).
2. neos in the NT thus characterizes the new thing which Jesus has brought to
men both as gift and as task, the new salvation and life which commences at his
coming and is completed at his return. neos therefore stands in necessary opposition
to that which was palai, earlier on, of old (Heb. 1:1), that which is palaios (— Old).
The palaios anthropos, the old man, is the autonomous man under sin (Rom. 7:6)
which is laid aside (Eph. 4:22) and must be purified from the palaia zymé, the old
—> leaven of unregenerate ways. God himself has declared that the earlier worship
which had become so superficial is obsolete. He has abrogated it (palaiod, Heb.
8:13), and his will is that believers serve him, not en palaiotéti grammatos (Rom.
7:6), in the old and worthless worship of the letter, the written code, but en kainotéti
pneumatos, in the renewal, in the newness of the Spirit.
675
New/NICOLAITAN
3. By contrast with palaios, old, both neos and — kainos denote the new salva-
tion which Christ has brought, and the new life of faith in him. The picture of new
wine and old wine-skins (Matt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:38) makes a sharp distinc-
tion between the new (the person and preaching of Jesus) and the old (Judaism
and John the Baptist’s followers). Jesus calls for a clean break between old and new,
since both could only be linked together with resultant mutual disadvantages.
The parable is to be understood against the background of the incompatible oppo-
sition in which Jesus stands to everything that has gone before. The new wine at the
wedding feast at Cana also shows that the new is better than the old (Jn. 2:1-11),
even though the words new and old are not used in the account.
4. The picture of the congregation as new dough (neon phyrama) which is
separated from the — leaven of ‘‘malice and evil’ takes the thought a step further
(1 Cor. 5:7). Just as the old leaven has to be cleansed out annually at the Passover
(Deut. 16:3 f.) and a fresh start made, so nothing of the old life should be allowed
to corrupt the new. In context Paul is talking about — boasting which ill befits the
Corinthians in view of their recent case of gross immorality (1 Cor. 5:1—6). He goes
on to urge the Corinthians to celebrate the festival “‘with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth” (5:8). For the church has entered a new era, a new Passover
time, “‘For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed” (5:7).
5. The vb. ananeoo occurs in the NT only at Eph. 4:23, where it is best taken
as a passive: ‘‘and be renewed [ananeousthai| in the spirit of your minds.” The
following v. adds: ‘‘and put on the new nature [ton kainon anthropon], created
after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (— kainos).
6. Even though the word-groups neos and kainos are largely used synonymously,
the observation may still be made that neos tends to stress the reality of salvation
in the present, whereas kainos emphasizes more strongly the character of eschato-
logical fulfilment. H. Haarbeck
— Old |
(a). J. Behm, kainos etc., TDNT III 447-54; and neos etc., TDNT IV 896-901; G. Bornkamm,
‘‘Baptism and New Life in Paul (Romans 6)”, Early Christian Experience, 1969, 71-86; R. Bult-
mann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 526 f.; R. A. Harrisville, ‘““The Concept of Newness in the New
Testament’, JBL 74, 1955, 69-79.
(b). G. Harbsmeier, ‘‘ ‘Alt’ und ‘Neu’ in der Verktindigung”’, EvTh 27, 1967, 286 ff.; F. Hahn, ‘“‘Die
Bildworte vom neuen Flicken und vom alten Wein”, EvTh 31, 1971, 357 ff.; A. von Harnack,
“Die Terminologie der Wiedergeburt und verwandter Erlebnisse in der 4ltesten Kirche’, TU
42, 1918, 101 ff., 135 ff.; W. Nagel, ““Neuer Wein in alten Schlauchen (Mt. 9, 17)’, Vigiliae
Christianae 14, 1960, 1 ff.; P. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, FRLANT 87, 1966’,
213 ff.
Nicolaitan
| Nikohaitnc (Nikolaités), Nicolaitan; cf. MixddAaoc
Nucohaitys | (Nikolaos), Nicolas.
1. Member of a sect of primitive Christian times, apparently formed from the
personal name Nicolas or Nicolaus. The term occurs in the NT only at Rev.
2:6 and 2:15, in the epistles to the churches in Ephesus and in Pergamum. The first
676
NICOLAITAN
passage commends the church’s rejection of them without specifying the nature
of their teaching. It is an open question whether they are to be identified with the
‘false apostles” of v. 2. The more explicit context of Rev. 2:15 must be the basis
for any interpretation of the tenets of the group. There they are equated in some
sense with Balaam, who taught Israel “‘to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to
commit fornication” (cf. Num. 25:1—-3; 31:16). The same sins are also ascribed to
the teaching of “‘Jezebel’’ at Thyatira (Rev. 2:20), but she is never called a Nico-
laitan, though the trend of her influence is represented as similar. Both passages,
as far as we may judge from them, seem to concern errors of practice rather than
of speculative doctrine, though the phrase “‘they have not known the depths of
Satan” (2:24) suggests the possibility of some kind of gnostic background for the
Jezebel teaching.
2. The value of the later references to Nicolaitans is debatable. Irenaeus (Haer. 1,
26, 3) makes them the followers of Nicolas the deacon of Acts 6:5, but adds
nothing which might not possibly be explained as inference from Rev. In
Haer., 3, 11, 7, he treats them as the earliest exponents of the error of Cerinthus
and ascribes to them a gnostic cosmology. This might however be an inference from
a tradition connecting John’s opponents with the “gndsis falsely so-called’’ (1 Tim.
6:20), to which Irenaeus here appears to refer. These tenets might then merely
have been read back from subsequent developments.
Others condemn the Nicolaitans as teaching hedonism and immorality (Clem.
Alex., Strom. 2, 20; Apost.Const. 6, 8, 2; Ignatius (long recension) Trall. 11;
Philad. 6; Tertullian, Adv.Marc. 1, 29; De Pudic. 19), following Rev. without other-
wise specifying their doctrines. In Tertullian, Praescr.Haer. 33, and Hippolytus,
Haer., 736, they are associated or compared with gnostic groups, but neither
passage is explicit.
3. It is sufficiently clear from the primary references that Nicolaitanism was a
libertarian or antinomian movement, whatever else it may have been or become
also. The most promising key to a more precise interpretation is the parallel with
Balaam in Rev. 2:14-15. Balaam’s evil counsel is never explicitly recorded in the
OT, but the inference from comparison of Num. 31:16 with Num. 25:1-2 is that
he was responsible for contriving the sin of Israel with the daughters of Moab, an
incident which became much elaborated in Jewish tradition by the first century A.D.
(cf. Philo, Vit. Mos., 1, 54, 295 ff.; Joephus, Ant., 4, 6; 6, 126 ff.).
C. A. Heumann in 1712 first proposed that an etymological play was intended
on the names “Balaam” and “Nicolas”, both being taken to mean “‘Jord’”’ (Heb.
ba‘al) or “‘destroyer’” (Heb. bala‘) “‘of the people’’. The artificiality of this ety-
mology is not necessarily decisive against it: the question is whether it was current
in antiquity. It is very probably no more than a modern fancy. Yet Balaam is
unexpectedly prominent in Jewish tradition. He was a type of lawless wickedness,
the antagonist of — Moses the law-giver. And in the NT Jude 11 and 2 Pet. 2:15
refer to controversies involving his name. There is some reason to think that a
polemical use of the name was already current in the milieu of the Asian churches
(cf. the messianic use of Balaam’s prophecy in Num. 24:17, echoed in Rev. 2:26-
28). Jewish sources sometimes associated Balaam with Jesus as a representative
opponent of the Torah (R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash,
[1903] 1972, 63 ff.). The point of the objection may have been that the followers of
677
NICOLAITAN/ NINEVEH
Jesus opposed faith to law and therefore appeared to sanction an antinomianism
which gave licence to immorality. Paul was ever conscious that his gospel was
open to this perversion, but refused to countenance it (cf. e.g. Rom. 6:1).
Balaam’s advocacy of eating idol-offerings and of fornication brings us also to
the terms of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:20, 29, which echo Num. 25:1-2.
The Acts represents Paul, to whom antinomians might appeal, as having assented
to these terms.
In Rev. John rejects the application of the term ‘“‘Balaam”’ to Christians as such,
while turning the word against a perversion to which the gospel of faith apart
trom works was open.
4. It is not clear whether the Nicolaitans are necessarily to be seen as gnostics,
as Harnack formerly argued. But changing conditions might bring new arguments
to the fore, and those who once appealed to Pauline teaching might later use such
new fashions of thought as suited their end. Nor can we judge the vexed question
whether the Nicolaitans are to be connected with the antinomians of Jude and 2
Pet.
The churches of Asia were, I suggest, under severe pressures under Domitian
and could secure their position only by accommodation either to Judaism or to
the dictates of pagan society. The Nicolaitans (and Jezebel) are mentioned in
connection with those three cities where we have reason to think the pagan com-
promise was most insistent. The temptation to idolatry at Thyatira may plausibly
be connected with the strength of the pagan trade-guilds in that city: the Christian
who valued his livelihood was under pressure to participate in the idolatrous feasts
of his guild. At Ephesus there was the power of the Artemis cult. Pergamum was the
provincial centre of the imperial cult, and a new rigour of enforcement of that cult
by Domitian faced the church with an acute dilemma. Safety might be assured
only by what John saw as amounting to apostasy. The Nicolaitans and their kind
were plausible advocates of the pagan compromise (cf. further C. J. Hemer in PEQ.
105, 1973, 6-12, and literature there cited). C. J. Hemer
(a). G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, New Century Bible, 1974, 85-91; H. Cowan,
‘‘Nicolaitans’’, HDB III 547 f.; E. S. Fiorenza, ““Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revela-
tion and Paul’’, JBL 92, 1973, 565-81; A. von Harnack, “The Sect of the Nicolaitans and Nicolaus,
the Deacon of Jerusalem’’, Journal of Religion 3, 1923, 413-22; C. J. Hemer, A Study of the
Letters to the Seven Churches with Special Reference to their Social Background, Dissertation,
Manchester, 1969, 191-206; R. W. Moss, “‘Nicolaitans”, ERE IX 363-66; W. M. Ramsay,
The Letters to the Seven Churches, 1904, 299-302, and 335-53. _
(b). N. Brox, ““Nikolaos und Nikolaiten’’, Vigiliae Christianae 19, 1965, 23-30; M. Goguel, ‘“‘Les
Nicolaites”’, Revue de I’ Histoire des Religions 115, 1937, 5-36.
Nineveh
[ Nwenf | Nivevy (Nineué), less common: Nivevi (Nineui), Nineveh;
fi Nivevityc (Nineuités), Ninevite.
CL Nineveh (Gk. Ninos, Ninus) is cited copiously in the classical Gk. historians.
Xenophon refers to the city of Mespila (Anab. 3, 4, 10) observing that it was
once inhabited by the Medes. Mespila is modern Mosul, the city opposite Nineveh
on the west bank of the Tigris. Nineveh is cited by Herodotus on a number
678
NINEVEH
of occasions and Dio (Roman History) cites it in a description of the Roman
incursion into Assyria. Diodorus and Strabo make mention of the city as well.
Josephus makes numerous references to the city (e.g. Ant. 9, 10, 21; 9, 11, 3)
attributing its founding to Assyras.
or The references to Nineveh in the LXX (cf. Gen. 10:11 f.; Isa. 37:37; Jon. 1:2;
Zeph. 2:13) are similar to the references in the Heb. OT. The Heb. form
nin®weh denotes both the district (Ass. ninua[ki]) and the metropolis ([a/]-ninua).
Nineveh is mentioned 17 times in the OT. According to Gen. 10:11, 12, the
city was founded by Nimrod and, in 2 Ki. 19:36, Sennacherib is described as
returning to his royal residence at Nineveh after his failure to conquer Jerusalem
(cf. also 2 Ki. 18:15). A parallel reference occurs in Isa. 37:37.
The city figures prominently in the prophecy of > Jonah (1:2; 3:2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7;
4:11) where its wickedness is described as the cause for its threatened destruction.
The three days’ journey required to cross it (Jon. 3:3) possibly refers to the ad-
ministrative district of Nineveh (Hatra-K horsabad-Nimrud). The preaching of the
prophet Jonah led to repentance on the part of the citizens of that city which
averted the impending catastrophe (Jon. 3:10).
The city of Nineveh also figures prominently in the prophecy of ania The
book of Nahum is a prophetic oracle dealing solely with the destruction of Nineveh
(cf. Nah. 1:1; 3:7). The reference to the opening of the river gates (Nah. 2:6) may
picture the inundation of part of the city effected by a coalition of Medes, Baby-
lonians and Scythians who conquered Nineveh.
Nineveh is cited in the prophecy of Zephaniah (2:13) where its destruction is
mentioned along with the destruction of other peoples in an oracle depicting God’s
—> judgment on Israel’s enemies and Israel’s eventual vindication.
Nineveh is mentioned in cuneiform sources from the reigns of Gudea (2200 B.c.)
and Hammurabi (c. 1750 B.c.). Extensive archaeological excavation at the site of
ancient Nineveh has revealed occupation from prehistoric times. In the reigns of
Shamshi-Adad I (c. 1800 B.c.) and Hammurabi the city’s importance as the site of
the temple of Ishtar was maintained in the restoration and beautification of the
temple. With the restoration of Assyria’s fortunes under Shalmaneser I (c. 1260
B.c.) Nineveh gained in importance and became one of the royal residences.
Perhaps the Assyrian king who made the greatest contribution to the greatness
of Nineveh was Sennacherib who rebuilt the defences of the city and constructed
a system of dams and canals. A number of buildings and parks were constructed
during his reign as well (704-681 B.c.).
Several important cultural contributions were made by Ashurbanipal (669-
627 B.c.). Bas-reliefs from this time witness to the high degree of skill achieved by
the artists who were encouraged by Ashurbanipal’s love for the arts.
With the death of Ashurbanipal there began the events which led to the decline
of the Assyrian empire and the demise of Nineveh. The alliance of Babylonians,
Medes and Scythians was able to effect the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.c. after a siege
of several months. Thereafter Nineveh became a symbol of Assyria’s utter collapse.
Archaeological excavations have been carried on extensively at the site of ancient
Nineveh beginning with the work of Austen Layard in 1847. The present site of
Nineveh is marked by two mounds, Tell Quyunyiq (‘hill of many sheep’’), a name
679
NINEVEH
reminiscent of Zephaniah’s prophecy concerning Nineveh (Zeph. 2:14), and Tell
Nebi Yunus (“hill of the prophet Jonah’’) which is still covered by a village.
As the chief city of Assyria Nineveh was the crystallization of the culture and
power of that kingdom. As such, it represented to the OT prophets the seat of the
cruelty and oppression that the Assyrian empire had brought to bear on Israel.
T. McComiskey
NT Nineveh is referred to in the Matthaean and Lucan versions of the saying
concerning the sign of the prophet — Jonah. ““The men of Nineveh will arise
at the judgment with this generation to condemn it; for they repented at the preach-
ing of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here”’ (Matt. 12:41 par.
Lk. 11:32). The wording is identical, but whereas Matt. 12:42 goes on to cite a
similar instance of the pagan “‘queen of the South” (the queen of Sheba, | Ki.
10:1-13) coming from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, Lk.
inverts the two illustrations. The point of both stories is to contrast the responsive-
ness of outsiders with the chosen people which Jesus calls “‘this generation”. For
not content with what Jesus has already said and done, they still sought a sign
(cf. also Matt. 16:1; 1 Cor. 1:22). Jesus replies that ‘““An evil and adulterous
generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the
prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the
whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth” (Matt. 12:39 f.; cf. Lk. 11:29). The reply was enigmatic, for it was, as one
might expect, not the — generation that was judged but the prophet. In the first
instance the sign indicates the rejection of the prophet (cf. Jon. 1:4, 10, 12, 15).
But it also indicates that death will not be the end of the Son of man, and that his
vindication will soon come. Then follows the reference to the citizens of Nineveh
who responded to the preaching of Jonah when the prophet proclaimed that the
Lord intended to overthrow the city because of its wickedness (cf. Jon. 3:1-10). The
allusion invites a similar response, so that judgment may be averted. This is under-
lined by the implicit contrast between the hearers of Jesus who were not pagans
(like the people of Nineveh) but members of the people of God, and by the explicit
contrast between Jonah and Jesus. The expression ‘‘and behold, something greater
than Jonah is here’’ invites the hearers to think for themselves as to who Jesus is
and what was his relation to the kingdom of God which he proclaimed (cf. Matt.
16:13 ff.; Mk. 8:27 ff.; Lk. 9:18 ff.).
Lk.’s account omits the reference to the three days and nights. It focuses entirely
on the response of the Ninevites: “For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nine-
veh, so will the Son of man be to this generation” (Lk. 11:30). The implication is
that Jonah preached to the Ninevites as one who had come from the dead.
M. Black suggests that the vb. anasténai . . . meta (arise with) represents a well-
attested Semitism meaning dispute, and that the words en té krisei were added in
the Gk. to make the Aramaic idiom intelligible (An Aramaic Approach to the
Gospels and Acts, 1967", 134). C. Brown
—> Jonah, — Judgment, — Resurrection
A. H. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, III, 1849; and Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and
Babylon, 1853; A. Parrot, Nineveh and the Old Testament, 1955; G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries,
1875; E. A. Speiser, ““Nineveh’’, 7DB III 551 ff.; R. C. Thompson and R. W. Hutchinson, A
680
NINEVEH/NOAH
Century of Exploration at Nineveh, 1929; R. C. Thompson, “The Buildings on Quyunjiq, the larger
mound of Nineveh’’, Jrag 1, 1934, 95-104; R. C. Thompson and R. W. Hutchinson, ‘“‘The site of
the palace of Ashurnasirpal at Nineveh”, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 18,
1931, 79; ‘‘The British Museum Excavations on the Temple of Ishtar at Nineveh’’, ibid. 19, 1932,
55-116; R. C. Thompson and M. E. L. Mallowan, “‘The British Museum Excavations at Nineveh,
1931, 1932”, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20, 1933, 71-120; D. J. Wiseman,
“Nineveh”, NBD 888 ff.; and ““Niheveh”, ZPEB IV 440-44.
Noah
| Nod | Nod (Woe), Heb. ndab, Noah.
oT 1. Noah (Heb. ndah, probably cognate with niiah, “‘rest’’?) was the tenth in line
of descent from Adam (Gen. 5:28 f.) and figures as the hero of the flood narra-
tive (Gen. 6:11-9:19), as an outstandingly righteous man (Gen. 6:9, 7:1; Ezek.
14:14, 20) who “found favour in Yahweh’s eyes’’ (Gen. 6:8), and as the first man
to plant a vineyard (Gen. 9:20) — which was apparently the fulfilment of his father
Lamech’s prophecy at his birth: “Out of the ground which Yahweh has cursed
this one shall bring us relief [y°nah*méni] from our work and from the toil of our
hands” (Gen. 5:29). With his wife, his three sons and their wives, he sutvived the
flood in the ark which he constructed at God’s command, and became the ancestor
of the new, post-diluvial world.
He is mentioned in Ezek. 14:14, 20, where God affirms that, if Noah lived in
Jerusalem in the period preceding its destruction by the Babylonians, his righteous-
ness would avail to deliver himself alone (not even, presumably, the seven members
of his family who were delivered with him at the time of the flood). On a more
cheerful note, on the eve of the return from the Babylonian exile Jerusalem is
assured that Yahweh’s steadfast love to her will be as irrevocable as his covenant
with the human race in “the days of Noah” (Isa. 54:9 f.; cf. Gen. 9:8-17).
2. The Jewish wisdom writers found in Noah an example of true wisdom.
Because he “‘was found perfect and righteous’’, says Ben Sira, ‘‘a remnant was left
to the earth when the flood came” (Sir. 44:17 f.). ““When the earth was flooded’,
says the author of Wisdom, “‘wisdom saved it again, steering the righteous man
in a cheap structure of wood” (Wis. 10:4). Philo notes that Noah is “‘the first man
~ recorded as righteous in the sacred scriptures’”’ (Congr. 90) and gives “‘righteous-
ness’’ alongside “‘rest”’ as the meaning of his name (Abr. 27). He praises him as a
victorious athlete, who won his citation because “‘he had been well-pleasing to God”’
(Abr. 35; cf. Gen. 6:9 LXX).
3. The Ethiopic Enoch incorporates parts of one or more Noah apocalypses
(6-11; 54:7-55:2; 60; 65:1-69:25; 106; 107). Most of these are concerned with
the fall of the angels, the ensuing — judgment of the flood and the age of blessing
to follow. One of them, however (106:1-19), describes the new-born Noah as a
wonder-child: Lamech suspects that he may be the son of an intrusive angel, and
consults his father Methuselah, who in turn goes to “‘the ends of the earth’ to
consult his father Enoch. Enoch confirms that Noah is indeed Lamech’s son, and
that God will do “‘a new thing on the earth” in his day. Essentially the same story
68 1
NOAH
appears in the Genesis apocryphon from Qumran (1Q GenApoc. 2) and in frag-
ments from Cave 4, one of which even gives the baby’s weight (J. T. Milik, Ten
Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, 1959, SBT 26, 35).
NT 1. In the teaching of Jesus the flood of Noah’s day is recalled, like the destruc-
tion of Sodom and the neighbouring cities, as a pattern of the judgment that
will overtake the world at the coming of the Son of man, especially in its swiftness
and suddenness (Lk. 17:26 f.; cf. Matt. 24: 37-39).
2. In Heb. 11:7 Noah’s faith is emphasized; the quality of his faith was mani-
fested by his prompt obedience to the divine admonition (cf. Gen. 6:22). Thus he
“condemned the world”’ (i.e. exposed the perversity of those who refused to believe
God) and (like Abraham at a later date) was justified by faith.
3. In 1 Pet. 3:19 ff. there is a reference to the spirits imprisoned because of their
disobedience “‘when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building
of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons were saved through water.” To
these spirits Christ is said to have made proclamation — proclamation, it may be
inferred, of his triumph which finally sealed their doom. The relevance of the
flood narrative to the life-setting of 1 Peter lies in its providing an OT counterpart
to Christian — baptism which the readers of the letter were “‘now”’ receiving (Vv. 21).
4. In 2 Pet. 2:4f. the preservation of Noah, “with seven other persons’’, is set
in antithesis to the imprisonment in Tartarus of the rebel angels until the last
judgment (cf. Jude 6)—a guarantee of God’s power to preserve the godly and
punish the wicked. Noah is here called ‘‘a herald [kéryx] of righteousness”’; cf.
Jos., Ant. 1, 74; Sib.Or. 1:125 ff.; 1 Clem. 7:6; 9:4, and Gen. R. 30:7 (on Gen.
6:9) which says that ““God had a herald [kar6z] in the generation of the flood.”’ In
2 Pet. 3:5—7 the destruction by water of “‘the world that then existed”’ is viewed as a
harbinger of the destruction of the present world by fire.
5. The absence of any mention of Noah in the Pauline letters is noteworthy.
Although he was the second father of the human race, he is not treated as a typical
figure like Adam (Rom. 5:12 ff.). Neither does Paul make any reference to the
‘““Noachian decrees’”’ — the injunctions of Gen. 9:1—7 which were held in rabbinical
teaching to be binding on all Noah’s descendants, Gentiles as well as Jews. Accord-
ing to the oldest forms of this teaching, six of the seven ‘‘Noachian decrees” had
already been enjoined on Adam; only the seventh (the prohibition of eating flesh
with the blood in it) was given for the first time to Noah (SB III 36). Paul regarded
the ungodliness of the pagan world (Rom. 1:18 ff.) as disobedience to God’s
creation ordinances.
The ‘‘Noachian decrees” may be reflected in the apostolic ruling of Acts 15:20,
29; 21:25, especially in the Western text, where the original wording, with its
emphasis on food restrictions, has been given the form of a mainly ethical require-
ment that Gentile converts to Christianity should abstain from idolatry, fornica-
tion and —> “‘blood”’ (it being left uncertain whether this means eating with the
blood or shedding human blood). F. F. Bruce
(a). C. K. Barrett, From First Adam to Last, 1962, 23-26, 30; A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old
Testament Parallels, 1946; W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story of
the Flood, 1969; B. Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 1946; E. Schirer, A
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ VI, ii, 318 f.; S. S. Schwarzschild and S.
682
NoAH/NUMBER
Berman, ‘‘Noachide Laws’, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, II, 1189-1191; D. Young, E. Hallevy,
et al., ““Noah’’, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, XII, 1191-1198.
(b). G. Fohrer, ““Noah’’, RGG* III 1501 f.; G. Strecker, ““Noachidische Gebote’’, RGG* III,
1500 f.
Number
aplOuoc aplOudc (arithmos), number.
CL arithmos, is derived from a root *ar, to fit; cf. ara, fitting; harmonia, construc-
tion; arthmos, connection, friendship; Lat. ars, art.
1. arithmos denotes in general Gk. usage (a) that which has been brought to-
gether, a quantity, total, number, extent, amount (e.g. chrysiou, of gold, Xen., Cyr.
8, 2, 16). But it can also mean (b) the assessment of numbers, i.e. count, muster
(Hdt., 8, 7), and then a troop, a military unit (C/G, V, 187). Anyone who (c) is
included in the count is a man of distinction or reputation (Homer, Od. 11,449;
Eur., Frag. 519). Conversely en oudeni arithmo einai (to be in no number) is to be
ignored, disregarded. Where arithmos is understood as quantity as opposed to
quality it can be (d) the virtual embodiment of that which is worthless, futile,
empty (cf. arithmos logon, empty words, Soph., OC 382). Occasionally (e) arithmos
has the sense of code, cipher.
2. In the popular and religious and philosophical thought of Hellenism gematria
(the process of encoding a word by adding together the numerical value of its
component letters) gained great significance. The decoding of a gematrical number
was only possible for the initiated, since the sum itself is ambiguous. The scribbling
found ona wall in Pompeii (before A.D. 79) which runs: “I love her whose number
is 545” might be called a kind of gematrical frivolity. The combination of three
words with the numerical value 284 (Gaios — hagios — agathos, found by adding
together the value of the individual letters) in a Roman inscription is even more odd.
Gaios (numerical value: 3 + 1 + 10 + 70 + 200) is at the same time to be called a
hagios (pure; numerical value: 1 + 3 + 10 + 70 + 200) and an agathos (good,
fine; numerical value: 1+ 3-+ 1+ 9-+ 70-+ 200) man. The words are inter-
changeable from the point of view of gematria, because they are of equal value.
The “number of the year” Abrasax, 365, mentioned in the Leiden magical papyrus,
betrays the stamp of a speculative gematria, which arbitrarily replaces the number
of days in a year by a meaningless — but therefore all the more mysterious — word;
the word Abrasax retains its mysterious character in later gnostic texts.
oT 1. The LXX renders several Heb. and Aram. terms by arithmos, most commonly
mispar, number, corresponding as a rule with the general Gk. meaning (a) (above
CL) e.g. Gen. 34:30; Exod. 16:16. arithmos has the same sense when translating
middah, measure (Ps. 38[39]:5); ro’s, (lit. head) sum, total (Num. 1:49); miksdah,
number, amount (Exod.12:4; cf. Lev. 27:23); and Aram. minyan, number (Ezr.
6:17); and when rendering bim*té m°‘at, with few people, in small numbers (Deut.
26:5); ’€n mispar or ’én qgéseh, without end, i.e. innumerable (Gen. 41:49; Isa.
2:7); and ‘as*mii missappér, to be exceedingly numerous (Ps. 40:5 [39:6]). The
meaning CL 1 (b) occurs (inter alia) in 1 Chr. 7:5 (yahas in hithp.), enroll by
683
NUMBER
genealogy (in the family register); Isa. 34:2 (saba’, host); 2 Chr. 17:14 (p*quddah,
muster, enumeration). Meanings CL | (c)-(e) are not attested in the OT.
2. In Rabbinic and Jewish Hellenistic literature, however, as well as the mean-
ings | (a) and 1 (b) (e.g. 2 Macc. 8:16; 3 Macc. 5:2), gematria is also found as an
exegetical method and for coding, without arithmos always occurring specifically
or the gematrical process being identified as such. Tg.O., for example, replaces the
information in Num. 12:1] that — Moses took a “‘Cushite”’ (heathen) wife by the
information that the woman was “‘lovely to look at’’; both produce the numerical
value 736. (For a further succession of gematriae cf. Sib. 5:12 ff.)
NT |. The NT links up with the LXX linguistic usage in that it generally only has
the meanings CL | (a) | (b) for the word arithmos, which in any case only occurs
18 times (including 10 passages in Rev., and 4 in Acts). Meaning | (a) without
concrete numerical details is found in Rom. 9:27; Rev. 20:8 (quotation of Isa.
10:22, though not the LXX); and with numerical details in (e.g.) Jn. 6:10; Acts 4:4,
Rev. 5:11; 7:4. Meaning | (b), in the writer’s opinion, appears in Lk. 22:3 (com-
pany). No usage of cL l(c) and 1 (d) can be detected, although in Rev. 13:17 f.
there is found the formulation “‘the name of the beast or the number of his name’’,
an express summons to calculate “the number of the beast”? which is “‘the number
of a man’. The number itself is given as 666, or according to other less significant
MSS 616 (probably not original). This is thus an instance of | (e) (cf. also 15:2).
2. Rev. 13:17f. is the sole place where the word arithmos assumes exegetical
importance in the NT. Doubtless the matter in hand here is a functional gematria,
which on obvious grounds puts into code the name of the person intended. The
context speaks pictorially of a “beast”? (— Animal, art. thérion), which in church
and exegetical tradition has been customarily and probably pertinently interpreted
of the — Antichrist. ““The number of the beast’’, which is stated to be ‘‘the number
of a man’’, shows that behind the beast and the number there is concealed a human
figure known to the hearers and readers of the text of that time. This excludes all
attempts to decode the number which do not relate to a human figure. (In passing
it may be noted that the text does not make it explicit whether one is to employ
the Gk. or Heb. alphabet for the interpretation of the number 666, though the text
itself is in Gk.)
Of the many attempts at interpretation the consonantal Heb. script for “‘Caesar
Nero” (gsr nrwn = 100 + 60 + 200 + 50 + 200 + 6 + SO = 666), for example,
has some probability. This solution is all the more attractive in that, combined
with 17:11 (‘the beast which was and is not’’), it could refer to the legend of Nero
redivivus, so that the Antichrist would thus be painted in the colours of the hated
Nero. The fact that the story of Nero redivivus is also known from Judaic apocalyp-
tic literature (cf. e.g. Sib. 5:138 ff.) would support this. But no definite interpreta-
tion of Rev. 13:17 f. can be given; E. Stauffer interprets it of Domitian in “666”,
Coniectanea Neotestamentica 11, 1947, p. 237 ff. The same applies to the number
of 153 fish in Jn. 21:11 which may also be regarded as a cipher. (See further W.
Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, KEK 16, [1906] 1966, 368-79; J. Behm, Die
Offenbarung Johannis 1920, I, 364-68; NTD 11, 1949, 79 ff.; R. H. Charles, The
Revelation of St. John, ICC, Il, 70f., 76-87; G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St
John the Divine, BNTC, 1966, 174 ff., 216 ff.)
684
NUMBER
As the process of gematria has already shown, numbers in the ancient world do
not merely indicate quantities but also qualities. Some numbers, in addition to
their quantitive meaning, also possess an almost fixed inner symbolic meaning.
This is especially true of the numbers four, seven and twelve, which are found in
the NT with a striking cumulative frequency. E. D. Schmitz
Care must be taken not to attribute theological significance to the use of par-
ticular numbers where it is arguable that no such significance was intended. Many
cases are better treated as literal or rhetorical or as round-number approximations
where these explanations seem natural and sufficient. Thus the particular fre-
quency of multiples of five and ten is in part a natural consequence of the use of
decimal reckoning. So too the prevalence of reference to the third, sixth and ninth
hours stems from the duodecimal pattern of the day.
Some cases are less obvious. In Matt. 1 the genealogy of Jesus is schematized
into sequences of fourteen, which is double seven. The enumeration here is selec-
tive and cannot be treated as being exhaustive. It is therefore reasonable to suppose
that the generations listed have been chosen with a purpose. The question remains
how far that purpose was theologically significant rather than merely rhetorical or
mnemonic.
The total of 153 fish in Jn. 21:11 is another debatable instance. There is ancient
precedent for symbolic interpretation here (Jerome, Comm.Ezek. 14 ad Ezek. 47:6 ff.
[MPL XXV, 474C]; Augustine, Tract. in Ioh. 122, 8). Modern scholars have
explained the figure by gematria (J. A. Emerton and P. R. Ackroyd), or as a
“triangular”? number, following Augustine (F. H. Colson and R. M. Grant; see
bibliography). The present writer prefers to follow J. H. Bernard (The Gospel
according to St. John, ICC, I, 1928, Ixxxvii, 699 f. ad loc.) and L. Morris (The Gospel
according to John, NLC 1971, 867 ad loc.) in taking the number literally. For the
practice of counting a catch for sharing among the participating fisherman see
E. F. F. Bishop, “‘ ‘A fire of coals with fish laid thereon, and Bread’ ’’, ExpT 50,
1938-9, 265). John elsewhere gives precise numbers where it would be superfluous
to look for a symbolical meaning (46 in 2:20; 38 in 5:5), and his constant emphasis
is On witness, not on esoteric gndsis. See further Bernard’s careful consideration of
“allegorical method” in the interpretation of John (op. cit., I, lxxxiii-xc). This
prompts caution, and his conclusions inform and control his treatment of nu-
merical details. It is indeed noteworthy that the number seven, so often symbolic
elsewhere, never appears in the Fourth Gospel.
There is however no doubt that numbers are often used symbolically in the Rev.
Yet even here it is sometimes needful to ask whether the symbolic explanation is
sufficient, or excludes the literal. It is surely significant in the context of this book
that there were seven churches of Asia. Yet the enumeration is of a named group,
whose choice seems to have been dictated by geographical particularities, and
which may indeed have functioned regularly as the most efficient centres of com-
munication for the churches of the province (W. M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven
Churches, 1904, 171-196).
There is then, I submit, need for discriminating appraisal of complex possibilities
in the study of particular numerical usages. OT, apocalyptic, Philonic and other
685
NUMBER
parallels may need consideration, but are not necessarily determinative. There are
notably diverse backgrounds of thought within the NT writings themselves. And
their earliest surviving interpreters were not necessarily in line with the writers’ own
meaning.
The following notes on some additional numbers must be highly selective. They
will inevitably focus on symbolic or otherwise significant numerals, but some cases
are exegetically important for other reasons. C. J. Hemer
| O60 | S80 (dyo), two.
1. The word dyo occurs some 135 times in the NT, but there are few of real
importance. Two is the smallest expression of plurality, and naturally points to
alternatives or contrasts (cf. Matt. 6:24; 21:28; 24:40-41). Emissaries are often
represented as acting and travelling in pairs (cf. Mk. 6:7; Matt. 11:2; 21:1). “Two
or three” is a frequent approximation for a very few. None of these obvious usages
need delay us.
2. In Jn. 8:17 we read that “the testimony of two men is true’: Jesus himself
and the Father are the two who bear witness to him. There is evident reference
here to the Jewish law of evidence deriving from Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15.
False witnesses are suborned in pairs (1 Ki. 21:10; Matt. 26:60). There are several
NT references to the need for two or three witnesses (Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1;
1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Perhaps the motif may reasonably be traced area
in the gospel events (Matt. 17:1 par. Mk. 9:2, Lk. 9:28; Matt. 26:37 par. Mk.
14:33; Lk. 24:13; Jn. 1:35 ff.). 7
3. The only significant usage of the simple numeral two in Rev. seems to be at
11:4-11. Again the theme is witness. The imagery goes back to that of Zech. 4: 2-3,
11-14. Here, however, the two witnesses have powers corresponding to those of —
Moses and — Elijah (Rev. 11:6), who are not named, but represent the testimony
respectively of the Law and the Prophets (cf. again the Transfiguration narratives.
— also on “three and a half” below).
4. In Rev. 1:16 a sharp, two-edged sword (rhomphaia distomos) proceeds from the
mouth of the risen Christ. The elements of the concept are repeated in the letter
to Pergamum in 2:12 and 16. Again the language recalls the OT (Isa. 11:4; 49:2),
but is applied to the need of the Pergamene Christian who faced judicial execution
by the Roman authority. rhomphaia was typically the foreigner’s sword. Its double
edge describes the Roman weapon, and the Roman proconsul wielded the “‘power
of the sword”? (ius gladii). But here it is Christ who holds the ultimate executive and
judicial authority. The sword is associated with the “‘word of God” (Rev. 19:13;
15; Heb. 4:12; Eph. 6:17). C. J. Hemer
T péic Tpeic, tTpia (treis, tria), three; tpic (tris), three times.
1. This number and its derivatives are very common throughout the biblical
literature, but great caution is called for in evaluating significant usages. Three is a
very common and natural rhetorical number, and threefold repetition or grouping
686
NUMBER
occurs often where the number itself is not mentioned. Many repetitive narratives
and parables have three elements. Many basic concepts are readily formalized on
a tripartite pattern: beginning, middle, end; past, present, future; body, soul, spirit.
Diverse examples are numerous: there are three enduring gifts in 1 Cor. 13:13,
three witnesses in | Jn. 5:8, threefold titles of Christ and of God in Rev. 1:4 and
4:8. |
2. A period of three days is very commonly mentioned in the OT. It is often the
length of a journey or of an interlude before a crisis (cf. Gen. 30:36; 40:12 ff.;
Exod. 3:18). Note the easy transition to the phrase “the third day” (e.g. 40:20;
—> tritos below), and to the fuller expression “three days and three nights” (1 Sam.
30:12; Jon. 1:17). As the ancients reckoned inclusively, this might denote a period
considerably shorter than seventy-two hours.
We should not attach too much importance to these phrases in their OT context,
but some of them are taken up significantly in the NT with reference to the death
and resurrection of Jesus. This is particularly striking in the allusion to Jonah
(Matt. 12:40), a figure elsewhere prominent in the Gospels (Matt. 16:4; Lk. 11:29-
32). See also Matt. 26:61; 27:40, 63; Mk. 8:31; 14:58; 15:29; Jn. 2:19-20.
3. Although three has widely been thought a sacred number, specifically religious
uses of it in the Bible seem to be relatively few. In the OT it is frequent in cultic
contexts (e.g. Exod. 23:14, 17). In the Rev. it is not so noteworthy as might have
been expected. In the structural pattern the characteristic seven sometimes divides
into four and three (Rev. 8:13 and implicitly elsewhere), and the twelve is composed
of four threes (Rev. 21:13). There is, however, no reason to think that religious
symbolism there attaches to three itself.
Yet the number three assumes peculiar importance indirectly in connection with
the concept of the Trinity. There are threefold formulae listing the Persons in such
passages as Matt. 28:19; Jn. 14:26; 15:26; 2 Cor. 13:13; 1 Pet. 1:2 (— God, art.
theos NT 8). There seems to be no precursor of this idea in any significant usage of
the numerical concept in the OT, nor may it reasonably be connected with the
occurrence of triads of deities in ancient Near Eastern paganism.
C. J. Hemer
T pitos tpitoc (tritos), third.
1. The ordinal tritos occurs 72 times in the Rev., more often than any other
ordinal, and much more than the cardinal treis. In 14 of these cases it represents
the fraction 4, referring to disasters in which a “‘third”’ part is destroyed. This idea
in Rev. 8 and elsewhere may be compared with Ezek. 5:2, 12. Rev. 12:4 is problem-
atic: see Dan. 8:10, where however the fraction is not mentioned. For discussion
of suggested parallels see R. H. Charles, Revelation, ICC, I, 1920, 310-314, 319.
Cf. also Baba Metzia 59°.
2. The characteristic uses of tritos in the Gospels and elsewhere are quite diffe-
rent. Of 53 occurrences outside the Rev., 13 refer to the resurrection of Christ ‘‘on
the third day”. This was evidently a characteristic motif of primitive Christian
preaching (Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4). The scripture to which the latter passage
refers. is evidently Hos. 6:2, which speaks in context of the restoration of the
687
NUMBER
apostate kingdom of Israel. Compare the parallel usages of “‘three days’’ above,
and also the enigmatic expression in Lk. 13:32.
3. 2 Cor. 12:2 speaks of “‘the third heaven’’. Some have seen allusion here to a
Jewish conception of seven heavens (Test. Lev. 2, 3; Sl. Enoch 3-21). This explana-
tion is questionable: Paul would seem to imply that he was carried to the highest
heaven, not to a lower place in a hierarchy of heavens. Nor is it clear that the largely
Gentile Corinthians would have understood this kind of Jewish speculation.
‘‘Paradise’’, however, mentioned in 2 Cor. 12:4, was linked with the “‘third heaven”’
of the series (> Heaven; — Paradise). C. J. Hemer
éviavtobc¢ tpeic Kai ufvac &é EvIAVTOUG TpEic Kai phvac && (eniautous treis kai
sal ate aid doa ménas hex), three years and six months, three
and a half years.
This number is curiously prominent under various guises both in Dan. and in Rev.,
and seems to denote an interval of calamity and suffering pending God’s deliver-
ance. It is the half of seven. It is also ‘‘a time and times and the dividing of time’’,
or 1+2-+4 (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 12:7). Historically the three-and-a-half-year
period may have been associated with the length of Antiochus Epiphanes’ posses-
sion of Jerusalem, which Josephus reckons thus (War 1, 7, 19). Lk. 4:25 and Jas.
5:17 treat the drought and famine of 1 Kings 17:1 as lasting three and a half years,
a detail absent from the OT text (cf. however “‘the third year” in 1 Ki. 18:1). It seems
clear that the three-and-a-half-year period was significant in apocalyptic tradition
(cf. G. H. Box on 4 Ezra 5:4 in Charles, Pseudepigrapha, 569). In Rev. the
forty-two months of Gentile or bestial domination (Rev. 11:2; 13:5) and the 1260
days of God’s providing (11:3; 12:6; cf. 1 Kings 17:4) are equivalents of it (cf.
again the different and varying resolutions of the 34 years in Dan. 8:14; 12:11, 12).
At Rev. 11:9, 11 the interval shifts to three-and-a-half days before the rising of the
witnesses. Note the fluidity of the use of OT allusion and of symbolism here, as in
the successive links of different symbols with the Elijah motif (— dyo above).
See further for “34” H. Burgmann in Revue de Qumran 8, 1972, 65-73.
C. J. Hemer
TEDOG PEG TéagaapeEs (tessares), four.
CL The symbolic significance of the number four (tessares) is derived from the four
points of the compass and the four directions of the wind (whereby the earth
is pictured as a four-cornered disc), and also from the four seasons and the corres-
ponding constellations. In Babylonian mythology the four signs of the Zodiac,
Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius, appear as powerful figures which support
the firmament of heaven by its four corners, or as the four beasts of burden of
the four-wheeled heavenly chariot. The number four thus symbolizes the totality
of earth and universe.
oT The OT makes use of the number four in this traditional sense, but without
taking over the mythical connotations (Ezek. | :4 ff.; 15 ff.). Thus, in accord
688
NUMBER
with ancient geography, four streams of Paradise encircle the four quarters of the
globe (Gen. 2:10 ff.). In Zech. 1:18 ff. the four horns represent four empires, the
four smiths Yahweh’s omnipotence which stands ranged against them; in Zech.
6:5 the “four chariots driving out from ‘the Lord of the whole earth’. . . [express]
Yahweh’s omnipotence, effective in all directions” (W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, BKAT
13, 53). The four winds or corners of the earth are mentioned (e.g.) in Isa.
11:12 and Jer. 49:36. In Judaism, and particularly in apocalyptic, the mythology
of the number four is again powerful (e.g. Eth.Enoch 18:2; 77:1 ff.; 82:11 ff.; but
also R. Johanan ben Zakkai and his school). A multiple of four also occurs as a
round figure for a limited totality, such as a generation, a man’s age; e.g. 40
(tessarakonta) years (Gen. 25:20 etc.); 400 years, i.e. 10 generations (Gen. 15:13);
40 days (Gen. 7:4 ff.; Ezek. 24:18 etc.), where the rough period of a month
possibly played a rdéle.
NT In the NT the number four occurs in the purely numerical sense, e.g. Mk. 2:3;
Jn. 11:17; 19:23 where the division of Jesus’ clothes into four presupposes four
watches or squads of soldiers (tetradion, cf. Philo, Flacc. 111; Acts 12:4); Acts
21:9, 23; 27:29. In Peter’s vision of the great sheet with four corners containing
clean and unclean — animals denoting God’s acceptance of the Gentiles the
imagery may suggest the four corners (Acts 10:11; 11:5) of the vault of heaven.
The four horns of the altar are mentioned in Rev. 9:13 (cf. Exod. 30:1-3; — Sacri-
fice, art. thyd). But in addition, especially in apocalyptic texts, the number four
occurs with a symbolic meaning. All these passages reflect the imagery of their ori-
ginal background, but the latter is no longer literally decisive for the meaning of the
text: thus the idea of gathering the elect from the four winds (Matt. 24:31 par.
Mk. 13:27) is comparable with saying from all quarters. In Rev. 4:6, 7, 8, 9; 5:6, 8,
11, 14; 6:1, 3, 5, 6, 7; 7:11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4; cf. Ezek. 1:5-22, the imagery of the
ancient world is formally adopted but with a transformed significance. The four
beings (tessara zoa), originally figures of the Zodiac supporting the vault of heaven,
become (by analogy with Isa. 6:2 f.) beings who praise God’s holiness by day and
by night (— Cherub). The four angels at the “‘four corners of the earth’ who hold
the winds (Rev. 7:1) and later let them go (Rev. 9:14 f.) are creatures who serve
God. Rev. 20:8 makes use of the ancient geographical idea of the four-cornered
disc of the earth, in the middle of which lies the holy city. In this context the ex-
pression means no more than that the nations approach the holy city for the final —
war at the end “from all sides” or “from every quarter’.
In addition, the number 40 (tessarakonta) e.g. Matt. 4:2 par. occurs in Lk. 4:2;
Mk. 1:13; Acts 1:3; 23:12, 21 in OT quotations and allusions, as does 400
(tetrakosioi) (Acts 5:36; 7:6; 13:20; Gal. 3:17) more frequently as round figures,
but also in connection with specific numbers. E. D. Schmitz
| TLEVTE | mEVtE (pente), five.
Five is common and natural as a round number wherever the decimal system is in
use. Such usages as in Matt. 25:20; Lk. 12:52; 14:19; 16:28 call for no further
comment. There is no clear evidence that this number should be given any symbolic
689
NUMBER
meaning in the NT. The “‘five months” of Rev. 9:5, 10 are just a limited period of
chastisement. It is an attractive conjecture that the figure is reminiscent of the
actual life cycle of the locust (R. H. Charles, Revelation, I, JCC, 243). This concrete
touch has no precedent in Joel. C. J. Hemer
EmTd Emta (hepta), seven; émtdxKic (heptakis), seven times.
CL The qualitative significance attaching to the number seven (Hepta) throughout
the whole history of religions can be explained from the original amazement
felt at the regularity of the passage of time in seven-day periods consonant with the
four phases of the moon, and secondarily from other astronomical observations.
Since for primitive man there is no linear time-sequence, and he could only appre-
hend time as a period, seven became the symbol of the fulfilled and perfectly
completed period. In Babylonian the number seven (kissatu) is synonymous with
fullness, totality; correspondingly Heb. S*ba‘, seven, denotes fullness (Prov. 3:10,
where “‘‘with plenty” RSV translates the Heb. for ‘‘seven’’). Seven is the symbol of
perfection. Philosophical speculations concerning the meaning of the number
seven are known from Greece (Solon, Pseudo-Hippocrates), which Philo took up
(e.g. Op. Mund. 90 ff.). In other respects Judaism up till the time of the NT followed
OT usage.
oT The OT adopted the symbolic imagery content of the number seven in nu-
merous ways: the completion of — creation in seven days (Gen. 1:1 ff.); pile
day feasts are fulfilled times (Lev. 23:6, 34); sprinkling of blood, seven timés
repeated (heptakis), brought Israel complete purification (Lev. 16:14, 19); Yahweh
promised Cain sevenfold, i.e. comprehensive, vengeance (Gen. 4:15); Yahweh sees
everything with seven eyes (Zech. 4:10); one of the marks of the fulfilment of the
age of salvation is a sevenfold increase in the sun’s illuminating power (Isa. 30:26);
a man’s full life-span is 10 x 7 years (Ps. 90:10; Isa. 23:15); a multiple of seven
chiefly stands for a round figure, comprising the whole (Gen. 46:27; Jdg. 20:16;
cf. also the seven Jewish brothers in 4 Macc. 8 ff. — their mother is called ‘“‘mother
of the nation” in 15:29); in proverbs seven can virtually signify all (Prov. 26:16).
According to Jewish conceptions, a total of seventy nations live on the earth (Eth.
Enoch 89:59 f.), an idea which is based on the table of the nations in Gen. 10,
where 70 (LXX:72) nations are enumerated, and which was also determinative of
the name “‘Septuagint”’, the translation of the OT into Gk. for the ‘‘70”’ nations of
the world (cf. Aristeas with the legend of the origin of the LXX). Lk. 10:1 ff. should
also be understood against the background of the idea of the 70 nations of the
earth: the sending of the 70 disciples is aimed at the nations of the world.
The number seven is also encountered as a stylistic principle of arrangement,
both in Rab. and in apocalyptic literature. (On the significance of seven in ancient
thought see K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT II 627 ff.) For discussion of the cosmic week
and the millennium —> chilias.
NT 1. Inthe NT epistles the number seven occurs only with background reference
to the OT: Rom. 11:4 (cf. 1 Ki. 19:18); Heb. 4:4 (cf. Gen. 2:2); 11:30 (cf.
690
NUMBER
Jos. 6:1 ff.). In Rom. 11:4 Paul adduces from | Ki. 19:18 that in his time there is
already a Christian remnant of Israel, which represents the full total of Israel as
dawn heralds the day (Rom. 11:16). In Mk. 12:18 ff. the — Sadducees imagine a
case where a woman contracts a levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5 ff.) six times over.
They wish to indicate by taking this example of a marriage, seven times repeated,
that every case of levirate marriage, which was an institution by divine command-
ment, reduces the resurrection to an absurdity (~ Marriage, oT 5).
2. Someone possessed by seven pneumata, spirits (Matt. 12:43 ff. par. Lk. 11:26),
or by seven daimonia, demons (Lk. 8:2), is totally possessed. In Matt. 18:21
Peter inquires concerning the limits of forgiveness: ““As many as seven times ?”’
There the seven has numerical significance. But Jesus replies that forgiveness has
to take place “‘seventy times seven times’’, i.e. totally and without limit (cf. Lk.
17:4). For Lk. 10:1 ff., where the number suggests a mission to the nations, see
above oT and below — hebdomékonta.
3. Despite all the individual differences, the genealogical trees of Jesus in Matt.
and Lk. are both orientated around the number seven. Matt. 1:17f. has three
groups of fourteen — generations: from — Abraham to — David, from David
to the deportation to Babylon, and from then to Christ (3 x 14=3 x 2 x 7).
Lk. 3:23 ff. cites seventy-seven ancestors of Jesus: from Adam to Abraham
(3 x 7), from Isaac to David (2 x 7), from Nathan to Shealtiel, i.e. the end of the
Exile (3 x 7), from Zerubbabel to Jesus (3 x 7). Both evangelists are obviously
interested in the fulfilment of history in the person of Jesus Christ; of salvation-
history (Matt.) and world-history (Lk.). In other respects Matt. shows a particular
predilection for the number seven as a scheme for the arrangement of his gospel
(e.g. ch. 13; 23:13 ff.). It is the stylistic expression of his theology of fulfilment.
4. Rev. uses the number seven most frequently of all the NT writings. It is
directed to seven churches of proconsular Asia, i.e. all churches (1:4, 11; 2 f.). Then
there are seven spirits (1:4; 4:5; 5:6), seven seals (5:1), the — Lamb with seven
horns and eyes (5:6), seven angels with seven trumpets (8 :2—-40:1), seven thunders
(10:4 ff.). The number seven here denotes in general the final eschatological appear-
ance of God, encompassing everything and setting everything in motion, on behalf
of his church. Correspondingly, on the side opposed to God, there is a final action
which is well-nigh able to withstand the power of God (e.g. the Dragon with seven
crowned heads 12:3 etc.).
({Ed.] The number seven plays an important part in the structure of Rev. The
book consists of seven series of visions, each in turn consisting of seven items.
Moreover, the seven visions appear to correspond to the seven days of the creation
story in Gen. 1. Whereas the Gen. story deals with the physical creation, Rev.
deals with physical world in the light of the new creation from a christological stand-
point. The broad outline is as follows: Day 1, the theme of light: Christ as the light
amid the seven churches as lampstands in a dark world [Rev. 1-3]; Day 2, the
firmament: world history from the perspective of heaven, the seven seals revealing
what will come to pass [Rev. 4:1-8:2]; Day 3, the land, sea and vegetation: the
future of the physical world revealed through the vision of the seven trumpets [Rev.
8:3-11:18]; Day 4, the sun, moon and stars: the seven things seen [Rev. 11:19-
16:1]; Day 5, life and death from the waters: the seven bowls [Rev. 15:2-18:24];
Day 6, man: the seven last things seen taking up the theme of Adam and Eve in
691
NUMBER
terms of the corruption of man by the great harlot and the judgment on Satan and
death leading to a vision of a new heaven and earth, the restoration of what was lost
through the fall [Rev. 19:1—21:8]; Day 7, the eternal sabbath: depicted in terms
of the new Jerusalem [Rev. 21:9-22:21]. The seven series of visions appear not to
be consecutive series of events, each one starting where the last leaves off, but a
series of visions of world history from the ascension of Christ to the consummation,
looking at the world from different standpoints and gradually building up to the
end of history and the new creation.)
5. Seven appears as a round summary number in Acts 20:6; 21:4; 28:14 and
possibly also in Matt. 15:34, 36, 37; 16:10; Mk. 8:5, 8, 20 (cf. A. Farrer, St
Matthew and St Mark, 1954, 57-80). E. D. Schmitz
OKTO OKt@ (okto), eight.
“Eight”, like “‘six’ in Lk. 13:14 and even “‘five’ in Rev. 17:10, is occasionally
involved in the significance attached to “‘seven’’, but is rarely important in itself.
Thus “eight days” is just inclusive reckoning for a “week” (Lk. 9:28; Jn. 20:26).
The Jewish male child was circumcised on the eighth day (cf. Gen. 17:12; Lev.
1273% Lk: 125972 -21¢-Phil.-325).
A difficulty is raised by two much debated passages, | Pet. 3:20 and 2 Pet. 2:5.
In the latter case ““Noah the eighth” is to be explained from the Greek idiom
ogdoos autos, to give the sense ‘“‘Noah and seven others’’. The parallel is then with
1 Pet. 3:20, not with Jude 14, and the two passages may be considered as having
a similar reference. The emphasis is upon the fewness of those saved, an enumera-
tion of > Noah’s family. The concepts of | Pet. 3:20 were already the subject of
allegoric interpretation in Justin, Dia/, 138, 1, where the eight persons stand for the
eighth day of resurrection and salvation. See further J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles
of Jude and of Peter, BNTC, 1969, 158 ff. It may, however, be doubted whether this
was the original writer’s intention or whether it represents a later and rather arti-
ficial elaboration of his typology. There is no parallel for later uses of the “‘eighth
day”’ idea within the NT writings. Cf., however, Ep.Barn. 15:8-9.
C. J. Hemer
ae O&Ka (deka), ten; dékatoc (dekatos), tenth; 7 deKkdtn
(hé dekateé), [the] tithe; dexatdw (dekato6), to tithe.
1. Ten, as the decimal base, is naturally very common, especially in round
numbers and approximations, and in its large multiples (1 Cor. 4:15; 14:19; Rev.
5:11; etc.). The most noteworthy usages are contained in Rev.
2. The “ten days” of Rev. 2:10 are usually said to denote a typically short, or
alternatively a typically prolonged but limited, period of tribulation. The phrase is
commonly referred back to Dan. 1:12 ff. But it is not clear whether this allusion
would have been readily perceived in Smyrna unless mediated through some more
specific tradition, for the imagery of the letters is often concrete and pointed. No
firm solution, however, can be offered on these lines. An interesting apocalyptic
parallel might be seen in the ten generations of Sib. 4:45-87, which is probably
692 |
NUMBER
close to Rev. in time and place. The phrase is differently paralleled in the reference
to “five days” (hémeron pente) in an inscription of Smyrna, published by L. Robert
(Hellenica V, 81-82), where the context is explained as gladiatorial. The present
writer plans to discuss the problem further elsewhere.
3. Rev. refers to a dragon and a beast with seven heads and ten horns (Rev.
12:3; 13:1; 17:3, 7, 12,16; — Animal, art. thérion). The beast has ten royal diadems
on its horns (13:1), and the horns represent kings (17:12). The image is evidently
derived from Dan. 7:24, where the horns stand for ten kings of the fourth world
kingdom. But here it is differently used and the application is debated. The em-
perors are linked with the seven heads: the horns are eschatological beings rather
than identifiable rulers. The number here may fairly be regarded as standing for the
universal extension of their ephemeral power.
4. A special usage is the “‘tenth part” or “‘tithe’’. The substantival form dekaté
is found in the secular papyri (e.g. P.Hibeh I, 115, 1): the verb (apo)dekatoo
alludes to the specifically Jewish practice. The OT law enjoined the payment of
one tenth for the support of the Levite (Num. 18:21 ff.). On tithing in the OT see
further Gen. 28:22; 1 Sam. 8:15, 17; Lev. 27:30-33; Num. 18:20—32; Deut. 12:6-—
19; 14:22-27; 26:1-15; Neh. 10:37 f.; 12:44; 13:5, 12; 2 Chr. 31:5-12; Amos 4:4;
Mal. 3:8, 10; — First; — Gift; — Sacrifice. The — Pharisees had made of this a
legalistic burden (Luke 11:42; 18:12; — Herb).
The idea of the tithe is taken up in the argument of Heb. 7, which refers to Gen.
14:20. The — Levites who received the tithe prescribed by the law were the descend-
ants of — Abraham: yet Abraham himself had given a tenth to ~ Melchizedek,
as the lesser to the greater. How much greater then was the priesthood to which
Abraham yielded place than that which his descendants exercised towards others
under the law. C. J. Hemer
[Sexe deKatn (dekaté), a tenth part, tithe; dEeKatow (dekatoo),
| receive tithes, (pass.) pay tithes; amodeKatow
(apodekatoo), give a tenth part, collect a tithe; azodexatevw (apodekateud), give
one tenth, pay a tithe.
CL Instances of the vb. dekatoo appear to be lacking in secular Gk. and the papyri.
It was probably coined to match the technical religious term dekaté, “‘tithe”’
(Moulton-Milligan, 140) that outside Jewish circles denoted (in particular) the
tenth part of the spoils of battle that the Greeks regularly dedicated to some god
(e.g. Xen., Anab. 5, 3, 4). apodekatoo and apodekateud also seem to be terms found
only in biblical Greek.
OT The verbs apodekatoo (6 uses in the LXX) and dekatoo (only in Neh. 10:37,
LXX) both render Heb. ‘@sar (piel, hiph., “‘pay tithes’’, ‘“‘receive tithes’’),
while dekaté renders ma‘*sér (‘‘tithe’’) 9 times. The Hebrews were obligated to tithe
their cereal and fruit crops and their livestock (Lev. 27: 30-33), paying their tithes
to the — Levites (Num. 18:20-24) or later to the descendants of Levi who served as
priests (cf. Heb. 7:5). Payment was made in — Jerusalem (Deut. 12: 5-6, 11, 17-18)
or each third year in their home communities (Deut. 14: 28-29; 26:12). Moreover,
the Levites themselves were required to give one tenth of this tithe to the priests
(Num. 18:26, 28; Neh. 10:38-39).
693
NUMBER
NT |. Gospels. It is in connection with the — Pharisees that the 3 NT uses of the
compound verbs occur. The self-righteous Pharisee of Jesus’ parable (Lk.
18:9-14) seems to be claiming that by tithing all types of income (apodekateud
panta) he had gone beyond the law and so had put God in his debt. Perhaps the
classic example of Pharisaic zeal and fastidiousness about tithing — to the neglect
of “‘the weightier demands of the law”’ such as justice, mercy and fidelity — was their
care to tithe (apodekatoute) even common garden plants that were used as condi-
ments or as medicinal — herbs (Matt. 23:23; Lk. 11:42) although this may not
have been required by the law (Deut. 14:22—23; Lev. 27: 30-32).
2. Hebrews. Seven of the NT uses of dekaté and its verbal equivalents are found
in Heb. 7:1—10. First (in vv. 1-2a) the author repeats the OT account (Gen. 14:17-
20) of the priest-king — Melchizedek who met —~ Abraham returning from the
slaughter of the Elamite king Chedorlaomer and three other rulers, blessed him and
then received from him a tenth part (dekatén, v. 2) of everything (= ‘“‘the spoils of
war’, v. 4). Then follows (v. 2b) an explanation of the etymological meaning of
Melchizedek’s name and his title (“king of Salem’’), and the observation that since
scripture contains no record of his parentage, genealogy, birth or death, he re-
sembles the — Son of God in remaining a — priest “for ever”’ (v. 3).
In vv. 4-10 the author establishes the superiority of the priesthood of Mel-
chizedek to the levitical priesthood on three grounds. (1) Although not a Levite,
Melchizedek received tithes (dedekatéken, v. 6) from Abraham, the ancestor of the
Levites, and himself blessed Abraham who had already received the promises (vv.
4-7). (2) In Israelite law mortal men belonging to the levitical priesthood received
tithes (dekatas). However, in the scriptural record, Melchizedek, to whom Abraham
gaye tithes, is never said to have forfeited his priesthood by death (v. 8; cf. v. 3).
(3) Through the act of his ancester Abraham, Levi himself can in one sense be said
to have paid tithes (dedekatotai) to Melchizedek (vv. 9-10).
3. The NT and tithing. Is tithing an obligation under the new covenant? The NT
writers maintain an eloquent silence on the matter (note especially 1 Cor. 9:13),
choosing rather to emphasize: (1) the need for spontaneous generosity (Lk. 21:4;
Acts 11:28—-30; 2 Cor. 8:1-3, 7; 9:5-10; Eph. 4:28; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16; Jas.
2:15-16) in response to God’s limitless giving (2 Cor. 8:8-9; 9:15; 1 Jn. 3:17);
(2) the need for individual decision (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 9:7; cf. Acts 11:29) apart
from external pressure (2 Cor. 8:8; 9:5, 7); (3) the blessedness of giving (Acts
20:35); and (4) the consequence of giving as being the glory of God or Christ (2
Cor. 8:19; 9:12-13).
See further F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 1964,
133 ff.; J. A. MacCulloch, “‘Tithes’, ERE, XII 347 ff.; O. Michel, Melchisedek,
TDNT IV 568 ff.; M. E. Tate, ‘“Tithing: Legalism or Benchmark ?’’, Review and
Expositor 70, 1973, 153 ff.; L. Vischer, Tithing in the Early Church, 1966.
M. J. Harris
| OWOEKG | 0wdeka (dodeka), twelve.
CL The number twelve (dédeka) gets its symbolic meaning from the twelve months ;
it is thus also originally an astronomical number.
694
NUMBER
OT ‘‘In the Bible one can no longer trace any memory of this. Rather, the use of
the number twelve is founded almost exclusively on the number of the tribes of
Israel” (RE? XXIJI 606). The number twelve (e.g. Num. | :4-49; 10:15-27; 13:2-15;
26 :4—63; 34:13-28) again most probably goes back to the ancient Israelite amphic-
tyony. M. Noth holds that care of the cult was shared by the twelve tribes, the re-
sponsibility for the upkeep of the common sanctuary alternating monthly between
the tribes (M. Noth, The History of Israel, 1958, 87 ff.). Even after the dissolution
of this institution the OT people of God continued to understand itself as the twelve
tribes of the people of — Israel (cf. Gen. 49; Jos. 19:1-22:21; 2 Chron. 6: 60-80;
cf. Acts 7:8). The number twelve in Holy Scripture primarily denotes the people
of God in its totality. It is only in Jewish apocalyptic that an occasional astral-
theological usage of the number twelve turns up (cf. e.g. Eth.Enoch 76:1 ff.; 82:11),
without the concept of the twelve tribes of the people of God being lost, however.
NT The thought of the twelve tribes as the people of God is still alive in the NT,
not only as historical reminiscence (Acts 7:8), but also when Paul, before
Agrippa, counts himself as a member of the twelve tribes (dddekaphylon), and
appeals to the promises made to them, which apply to him (Acts 26:7; cf. also Phil.
3:5). The circle of “‘the twelve”’ (Matt. 10:1 par. Mk. 6:7, Lk. 9:1; Matt. 10:2 par.
Mk. 3:14, 16, Lk. 6:13, Jn. 6:70; Matt. 10:5; 11:1; 19:28 par. Lk. 22:30; Matt.
20:17, par. Mk. 10:32, cf. 9:35; Lk. 18:31; Matt. 26:14 par. Mk. 14:10, 20, 43, Lk.
22:3, 47, Jn. 6:71; Matt. 26:20 par. Mk. 14:17; Mk. 4:10; 11:11; Lk. 8:1; 9:12;
Jn. 6:67; 20:24; Acts 6:2; 1 Cor. 15:5) is to be seen against this background of
the twelve tribes, since it owes its existence to a particular calling by the earthly
Jesus. On the Twelve and other followers of Jesus — Disciple (art. mathétés); >
Apostle (art. apostolos). ““The number twelve symbolizes the tribes of Israel (Mt.
xix 28; Lk. xxii. 30)” (G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 1960, 150). ‘‘The twelve
do not only point back to the historical twelve tribes of the people of Israel, birt
also forwards to the eschatological” (N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes, 1941, 158).
In view of the fact the — kingdom of God has just come upon them, their com-
mission (Mk. 3:14f.) points them primarily to the lost sheep of the old twelve
tribes of the — house of Israel (Matt. 10:6; 15:24), although they also have a
representative function in the post-Easter church. The NT people of God can be
addressed in Jas. 1:1 as “the twelve tribes in the diaspora” of the world (cf. | Pet.
1:1), whereby not only is a dignified title of the OT people of God taken over, but a
continuity of salvation—history is also maintained.
There is an echo of the astral—religious significance of the number twelve in
Rev. 12:1 in the vision of a woman clothed with the sun, wearing a crown with
twelve stars on her head. But the —-~> woman is here only the symbol of the daughter
of Zion, and the twelve stars of the crown signify the twelve tribes, the OT people
of God, from whom the messiah comes and to whom also belong those who confess
the name of Jesus (v. 17). Correspondingly the NT people of God, composed of
Jews and Gentiles, is described in 7:4 ff. in the 12 x 12,000 = 144,000 who are
sealed (— Seal, NT 3 (c)) from the tribes of Israel; cf. also 14:3. Thus the number
144,000 does not denote a numerical limitation of those who are sealed; it sym-
bolizes the final perfection of the people of God (cf. also 7:9). In this respect when
John sees them, as opposed to hearing the number of the sealed, they are “‘a great
695
NUMBER
multitude which no man can number, from all tribes, peoples and tongues”’ (cf.
Rev. 7:9 with 7:4).
The number twelve in the description of the new Jerusalem (21 :12 ff.) is used as
an expression of its glory, which is sufficient for the eschatological people of God —
“the one people of God in the city of God’ (TDNT II 323). In other respects
twelve is also used in its numerical sense and as a round figure (Matt. 9:20 par.
Mk. 5:25, Lk. 8:43; Mk. 5:42 par. Lk. 8:42; Mk. 8:19; Lk. 2:42; Acts 19:7;
24:11). E. D. Schmitz
| TEGO EPAKOVTA | Téaoé pakoyta (tesserakonta), forty.
Periods of forty days occur repeatedly in the OT (Gen. 7:4; 8:6; Exod. 24:18;
etc.). Forty years was the duration of Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness (Exod.
16:35; etc.). There seems to be no explicit biblical evidence for the frequent sug-
gestion that forty years was the regular round number reckoning of a generation,
though the idea is very plausible (cf. G. F. Moore, Judges, ICC, 18987, xxxviii).
The figure is constantly associated with long periods of human endurance and
with the duration of successive developments of God’s redemptive acts. So Jesus
was forty days in the wilderness (Matt. 4:2; Mk. 1:13; Lk. 4:2), and remained
with his disciples forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3). There is a partial
parallel in apocalyptic, where forty days is the proper period for a term of instruc-
tion (2 Bar. 76:4; cf. 4 Ezra 14:23). Again, at Qumran, the war of the Sons of
Light and the Sons of Darkness was to last forty years in all (1QM 2:6; etc.), and in
Sanhedrin 99a Eliezer ben Hyrcanus infers from Ps. 95:10 that the times of the
messiah should last forty years.
There are several references in Acts and Hebrews to the forty-year period of
Israel in the wilderness, and it seems to have been a theme of early Christian
preaching (Acts 7:36, 42; 13:18; Heb. 3:9, 17; cf. Acts 7:23, 30; 13:21). The
significance of the parallel is not spelled out, but it has been suggested that Heb.
envisages another forty-year period of probation for Israel between the death of
Jesus and the disaster he foretold (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, NLC, 1964, xliv, 65 n.).
The uncompounded numeral forty does not appear in the Johannine literature
or in Rev.
For the Jewish scrupulosity in not exceeding the maximum of forty stripes
(Deut. 25:3; 2 Cor. 11:24) see Makkoth 22a-b, and for first-century practice cf.
Josephus, Ant. 4, 8, 21 (238); 4, 8 23 (248). C. J. Hemer
| EBOouHKovta | EBdounKovta (hebdomékonta), seventy.
This number is often significant in the OT. The captivity of Judah in Babylon was
to last seventy years (Jer. 25:11), and in Dan. seventy weeks are appointed as the
period in which messianic redemption would be accomplished (Dan. 9:24).
Seventy elders were appointed to assist Moses (Num. 11:16). And in apocalyptic
there are the seventy (? angelic) shepherds of Eth.En. 89:59 ff.
Only two NT passages call for brief comment. Jesus commends forgiveness
696
NUMBER
until “‘seventy times seven” (or ? “‘seventy-seven times’’), that is, without limit.
Contrast Gen. 4:24: unlimited vengeance has given place to unlimited forgiveness.
In Lk. 10:1 Jesus sends out seventy (or seventy-two) disciples. The textual
evidence for or against dyo is finely balanced. In either case symbolic meaning
has been attached to the figure. It is pointed out that the nations enumerated in
Gen. 10 total seventy in the Hebrew, but seventy-two in the LXX. Again Josephus
(Ant. 12, 2, 5) follows the tradition in the Letter of Aristeas which lists the LXX
translators as seventy-two in number (Aristeas 47-50; 6 times 12 tribes), but goes
on to call them ‘‘seventy” (Ant. 12, 2, 7). (See further B. M. Metzger, ‘‘Seventy or
Seventy-Two Disciples?’ Historical and Literary Studies, Pagan, Jewish and
Christian, New Testament Tools and Studies VIII 1968, 67-76.)
Other large numbers. The NT does not present here the special difficulties of the
OT. Some large numbers just express indefinite multitude (1 Cor. 4:15; Rev. 5:11).
Those which are plainly symbolic are mostly large multiples of four, seven or
twelve.
For the “thousand years” of Rev. 20:1—7 — chilias. The Epistle of Barnabas
15:4-5 expounds Gen. 2:2 with Ps. 90:4 in terms of a ‘“‘cosmic week’’, a 6000-year
scheme of history being followed by a millennial ‘‘cosmic sabbath” (see E. Lohse,
TDNT IX 470f.).
The 1600 furlongs of Rev. 14:20 are problematic. The figure may be explained
as 400 times 4, or, indeed, as forty squared, but it is not clear why this amount is
chosen. There is no force in the suggestion that this was the length of Palestine,
and A. M. Farrer (Revelation, 168) is excessively over-subtle.
The array of examples considered in the above articles will serve to point the
caution offered at the outset. The exegetical significance of numbers 1s very diverse.
They may be approximate, rhetorical, schematic, proverbial or symbolic, and such
explanations may or may not exclude the literal. Each case needs to be taken indi-
vidually on its merits in its total context, with reference to the genre to which the
passage belongs. Straightforward principles of exegesis often, I think, oblige us to
take literally what has been too readily spiritualized, especially where ancient
allegorical interests have offered precedent. But the world of the NT itself was
complex in its intellectual heritage. There is a real danger of over-interpretation.
And some numbers are a subordinate element in a complex concept: we should
not look for a special numerical symbolism in a cat’s “‘nine lives’’ or in a “‘nine
days’ wonder’’. The choice of “‘nine’’ in these phrases may be explicable, but is
virtually arbitrary.
The ancients, it is true, sometimes endowed numbers with a conceptual vitality
which seems forced and foreign to us. But often they did not. If the Fourth Evan-
gelist never uses seven or forty, we may well hesitate to seek mathematical proper-
ties in his other, ostensibly precise and irregularly factual, numbers.
C. J. Hemer
| hac | yiMds (chilias), a thousand; yidioi (chilioi), a thousand.
CL & OT |. The noun chilias is found from Hdt. and Aesch. onwards and the adj.
chilioi from Homer. Both forms are found in the LXX, though chilias (which
697
NUMBER
occurs some 250 times) is much more frequent and is particularly common in Num.
and the historical books. It represents the Heb. ’e/ep.
2. °elep occurs in the numbers giving the sizes of the tribes (e.g. Num. | : 23-46;
2:4-32; 1 Chr. 7:2-40), but it also refers to the numerical part of a tribe (1 Sam.
10:19; Jdg. 6:15), alternating with mispahadh (1 Sam. 10:21). The ’al®pé yisra@ él, the
clans or tribes of Israel, are mentioned in Num. 1:16; 10:4, 36; Jos. 22:21, 30; cf.
Ps. 68:18; 1 Sam. 23:23; Isa. 60:22; Zech. 9:7; 12:5 f. The historical books display
an interest in the thousands involved in battles (e.g. Jdg. 1:4; 3:29; 4:6-14;
20:2-46; 1 Sam. 4:2, 10; 6:19; 2 Sam. 10:6, 18; 24:9, 15; 1 Chr. 12:20-37; but
cf. Amos 5:3 which asserts Yahweh’s power to decimate the mighty). There is also
an interest in the numbers involved in building the temple (1 Ki. 5:11—16 [25-30];
2 Chr. 2:2-18 [1-17]). There is, however, a strong case for thinking that in many
contexts ’e/ep does not literally mean a thousand but is a term for a considerably
smaller unit or perhaps meant ’alliip, captain of a band; this would make feasible
the apparently large numbers in OT records (cf. J. W. Wenham, “‘Large Numbers
in the Old Testament”, TB 18, 1967, 19-53). Ezek. is concerned with the measure-
ment and proportions of the land, representing the perfect ordering of the people of
God (Ezek. 45:1—6; 48: 8-35).
3. The plur. chiliades is often used for very large numbers which cannot be
reckoned. Yahweh shows steadfast love to thousands of those who love him and
keep his commandments (Exod. 20:6; cf. 34:7; Deut. 5:10; 7:9; Jer. 39[32]:18).
His power is described in terms of “‘mighty chariotry, twice ten thousand, thous-
ands upon thousands” (Ps. 68[67]:18). ‘“‘A day in thy courts is better than a
thousand elsewhere. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than
dwell in the tents of wickedness’ (Ps. 84[83]:10). The hosts of God’s servants
cannot be counted (Dan. 7:10). The greatness of Yahweh is also expressed in
Ps. 90[89]:4: “‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is
past, or as a watch in the night.”’ What to man seems a great age 1s as a moment to
Yahweh. To someone asleep the four-hour night watch is as nothing. To Yahweh
such a span of time (to which even Methuselah and the other ancestral figures men-
tioned in Gen. 5 did not attain; cf. also Jub. 4:20) is as nothing. A similar thought
is expressed in Sir. 18:10, and it is taken up by 2 Pet. 3:8 in arguing that God’s
time-scale is not to be judged by man’s, and hence that man should not presume
upon the apparent delay in judgment.
4. Various multiples of a thousand occur in Gen. 24:60; Exod. 12:37; 32:28;
38:26; Num. 3:43; Jdg. 8:10; 12:6.
5. In the inter-testamental literature innumerable hosts figure in.the apocalyptic
writings of Eth.En. 14:22; 40:1. The notion of thousands features in eschato-
logical expectation: the thousands of children of the righteous (Eth.En. 10:17);
superabundance of wine (Eth.En. 10:19; Syr.Bar. 29:5). The number features in
speculations about the duration of the world and the new aeon. These included the
idea of a cosmic week of seven millennia followed in some instances by a new era,
an eighth millennium (Test.Abr. 7 [2nd cent. A.D.]; Pseudo-Philo, Antiquitates 28,
2; Sl.Enoch 33:1; 33:4; cf. E. Lohse, 7DNT IX 468). Other writings saw the seventh
epoch as the final one (Sanh. 97 a—b Bar.; cf. E. Lohse, ibid., who notes that Sama-
ritan eschatology taught that the world would last 6,000 years). The length of the
messianic age varied from 1,000 years to 7,000 years. Although the idea of a
698
NUMBER
thousand-year messianic age is found only from the Ist cent. A.D., Lohse thinks it
likely to derive from an older tradition (ibid.; cf. SB III 827; Test.Isaac 8: 20).
6. The number 1,000 features in the military structure of the Qumran community
(1QS 2:21 f.; CD 13:1 f. [15:4]; cf. 1QM 12:4). Each thousand had its commander
to lead it into battle (1QM 4:2; 1QSa 1:14, 29). (See further Y. Yadin, The Scroll
of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, 1962, 49-53, 59 ff.)
The community believed that those who kept God’s commandments would live
for a thousand generations (CD 7:6 [8:21]; 19:1 f. [8:21 f.]; 20:22 [9:45]; cf.
Deut. 7:9).
NT 1. Various multiples of a thousand occur in the NT. dischilioi, two thousand,
was the approximate number of the Gerasene swine (Mk. 5:13). About three
thousand (trischilioi) souls were added to the church at — Pentecost (Acts 2:41).
About five thousand men (Ads chiliades pente) heard and believed the word (Acts
4:4). The same number were fed by Jesus (pentakischilioi andres) were fed by Jesus -
(Matt. 14:21; Mk. 6:44; 8:19; Lk. 9:14; Jn. 16:10). (On the possible symbolism in
these narratives see G. H. Boobyer, ““The Miracles of the Loaves and the Gentiles
in St. Mark’s Gospel”, S/T 6, 1953, 77-87; A. Farrer, St Matthew and St Mark,
1954, 57-80.) In Matt. 15:38 and Mk. 8:9, 20 four thousand (tetrakischilioi) were
fed. Acts 21:38 mentions the revolt of the Egyptian who led tetrakischilious, four
thousand, men. In dealing with the question whether God has rejected Israel for
good, Paul recalls the remnant of seven thousand men who did not bow the knee
to Baal (Rom. 11:4; 1 Ki. 19:18). But the instance is at the same time a reminder
that it is God who preserves the remnant, and therefore those who are saved are
“chosen by grace” (Rom. 11:5). The alternative would be salvation by works
(Rom. 11:6). In 1 Cor. 10:8 Paul recalls how twenty-three thousand of the wilder-
ness generation fell in a single day through idolatry (cf. Num. 25:1—18). The
military sense of a thousand is perhaps present in Jesus’ question whether a king
does not first take counsel whether he is able to meet with ten thousand (deka
chiliasin) his adversary who comes against him with twenty thousand (meta eikosi
chiliadon) (Lk. 14:31). The question culminates a series of illustrations on counting
the cost of discipleship. Confronted by overwhelming odds, the king with only ten
thousand sends an embassy and asks for peace. The illustration implies not only
the need to count the cost but also the impossibility of finding an alternative way
out (cf. the instructions to the Israelites in making war in Deut. 20:10—20).
2. chiliarchos is found in cl. Gk. from Aesch. onwards for a leader of a thousand
soldiers. It became a loanword in rabbinic writings, and was used in Roman times
of the tribunus militum, the military tribune, the commander of a cohort which
consisted of about 600 men (cf. Polyb. 1, 23, 1; 6, 19, 1; Josephus, Ant. 17, 9, 3).
In this sense it is found in Jn. 18:12; Acts 21:31 ff., 37; 22:24, 26-29; 23:10, 15,
17 ff., 22; 24:7 v.l., 22; 25:23. It is used of a high ranking officer generally in Mk.
6:21; Rev. 6:15; 19:18 (in the last two passages as objects of judgment).
3. chilioi occurs twice in 2 Pet. 3:8 with reference to Ps. 90:4 (see above oT 3)
where the readers are urged: “‘But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with
the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”’ The
context is concerned with man’s indifference and sin in the light of the apparent
postponement of the day of the Lord. The Psalmist had declared that “‘a thousand
699
NUMBER
years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.”’ 2 Pet. takes the thought a
step further and draws the corollary that “‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand
years.” This may represent a combination of Gk. and Heb. thinking, asserting that
God is not bound by the time-scale of the physical world. The reason for the delay
of the day of the Lord is God’s forbearance “‘not wishing that any should perish,
but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 2:9).
4. The remaining 9 instances of chilioi are all found in Rev. (11:3; 12:6; 14:20;
20: 2-7). In addition chilias is found in Rev. 19 times (5:11; 7:4-8; 11:13; 14:1, 3;
21:16). These instances represent an apocalyptic interpretation of OT themes.
Rev. 5:11 takes up the picture in Dan. 7:10 of the heavenly hosts “‘numbering
myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands” praising God. But the picture is
given a christological interpretation, for the object of their praise is the —-- Lamb
(Rev. 5:12 ff.). Rev. 7:4 gives the number of the sealed as ‘‘a hundred and forty-
four thousand sealed, out of every tribe of the sons of Israel’? (— Seal). Verses 5-8
enumerate the tribes by name, specifying twelve thousand out of each tribe. The
number symbolizes the final perfection of the people of God, based on the concept
of the twelve tribes of Israel (— dddeka) and asserting the historical continuity
with Israel. It is worth noting that when John hears the number he hears these
round numbers which consist of members of the twelve tribes. But when he looks,
the numbers are replaced by a countless host consisting of all peoples: “‘After this I
looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every
nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and
before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands”’ (Rev.
7:9). The hundred and forty-four thousand are mentioned again in Rev. 14:1, 3.
Rev. 11:3 and 12:6 mention a period of ‘‘one thousand two hundred and
sixty days’. This corresponds to the forty-two months of Rev. 11:2; 13:5 and
the time, times and half a time of Rev. 12:14. In Rev. 11:3 it is the period of
prophecy and in Rev. 12:6 it is the period of persecution. Both passages refer to the
same period, the age of the church which is one of prophetic witness and at the
same time one of persecution. In the light of eternity it is a comparatively short
period, although when expressed in terms of days it may seem lengthy. In the
background stands Dan. 7:25; 12:7 (— eniatous treis kai ménas hex), a period
which is half of seven, the perfect number, comprising of severe affliction which
continues until God accomplishes the end of all things. This affliction is described
in Rev. 11:7 ff.; cf. 12:2-6. It will culminate in the judgment of civilization (Rev.
11:3). The seven thousand who perish in the earthquake represent the complete
judgment on godless, secular society; the rest who were terrified and give glory to
God represent those who respond to the witness and God’s judgments.
Rev. 14:20 depicts judgment on the civilized world in terms of the sack of a city:
‘“‘and the wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the wine
press, as high as a horse’s bridle, for one thousand six hundred stadia.’ The dis-
tance is approximately two hundred miles. The number is a square number,
comparable with the hundred and forty-four thousand and the dimensions of the
—> Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 7:4; 14:1; 21:16). It suggests the area of the four parts of
the earth, i.e. the whole earth; the passage refers to the last judgment (cf. Rev.
19:11-21). By contrast, the area of the holy city, the new Jerusalem, is also square,
again indicating completeness: ““The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its
700
NUMBER
breadth; and he measured the city with his rod, twelve thousand stadia; its length
and breadth and height are equal” (Rev. 12:16). The number twelve goes back in
this case to the twelve tribes and the twelve thousand from each tribe. The complete-
ness of the new Jerusalem corresponds to the completeness of the people of
God.
Rev. 20:2-7 contains 6 references to a period of a thousand years: ““Then I saw
an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key of the bottomless
pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the
Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit,
and shut it and sealed it over him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till
the thousand years were ended. After that he must be loosed for a little while.
Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was
committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony
to Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its
image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to
life again, and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not
come to life again until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second
death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall
reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are ended, Satan
will be loosed from his prison.”’ After this follows the final conflict, the casting of
the devil, the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire and brimstone,
together with Death and Hades after the last judgment (Rev. 20: 8-15).
The passage has given rise to the concept of the millennium (from Lat. mille, a
thousand, and annus, year), a thousand year age of restoration in which evil is
banished, and to chiliasm (deriving from the Gk. word for a thousand). The idea
of a messianic kingdom, preceding the end and the coming reign of God is attested
in Eth.En. 91:12 f.; 93:1-14; Sib. 3, 652-660; 2 Esd. 7:28 f.; Syr.Bar. 29:3; 30:1-5;
40:3 (cf. above oT 5). It extends the older idea of a Davidic king restoring the
monarchy by combining it with that of universal judgment, resurrection and the
new aeon. According to 2 Esd. 7:28 f., the messiah would reign for four hundred
years before dying and the last judgment. The number 1000 is probably connected
with the idea of the cosmic week and Ps. 90:4 (see above or 3, 5). In the early
church belief in some form of a literal millennium is attested by Barn. 15:3-9;
Papias (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 5, 33, 4); Irenaeus, Haer. 5, 32—36; Justin, Dial. 81; the
Christian additions to the Testament of Isaac (8:11 and 19 f.; 10:11 f.); Tertullian,
Adv.Marc. 3, 24; 4, 31; the gnostic Cerinthus (cf. Eusebius, Hist.Eccl. 3, 28). It
was attacked by Origen (De prin. 2, 11, 2) and rejected by Augustine (De civ. 20, 7).
(For a discussion of these and other views in the early centuries see H. Bietenhard,
“The Millennial Hope in the Early Church’’, S/T 6, 1953, 12-30.) In addition to
apocalyptic ideas, Rev. 20 draws on Ezek. 36—48 with its visions of the resurrection
of Israel, the conflict with Gog and Magog and the promise of a new Jerusalem.
In modern times three main schools of thought have emerged concerning the
interpretation of Rev. 20. The Premillenarians treat the passage as future prophecy
in which the second coming of Christ will precede the millennium. Satan will be
bound for a thousand years, the martyred dead will be raised, and Christ will reign
as King of kings and Lord of lords from Jerusalem. The millennium will end with
701
NUMBER
the final rebellion of Satan, but this will itself be soon put down. The resurrection
and judgment of the wicked dead will precede the creation of the new heaven and
earth. (For statements of this position see N. West, ed., Premillennial Essays of the
Prophetic Conference Held in the Church of Holy Trinity, 1879; N. West, The Thou-
sand Years in Both Testaments, 1880; W. E. Blackstone, Jesus is Coming, 1917; D. H.
Kromminga, The Millennium in the Church, 1945 and The Millennium: Its Nature
Function and Relation to the Consummation of the World, 1948; C. L. Feinberg,
Premillennialism or Amillennialism ?, 1954.) Postmillenarians see the second coming
of Christ and the events of Rev. 20 as coming in the last thousand years of the
present age (cf. D. Brown, Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?, 1919;
J. H. Snowden, The Coming of the Lord: Will it be Premillennial?, 1919; L. Boettner,
The Millennium, 1957). Amillennialists, on the other hand, see the whole passage
as an essentially symbolic description of the present age in which Satan is already
bound and the dead in Christ are already reigning with him (cf. F. E. Hamilton,
The Basis of Millennial Faith, 1942; G. L. Murray, Millennial Studies: A Search for
Truth, 1948; W. J. Grier, The Momentous Event, 1945; W. Hendriksen, More than
Conquerors, 1947, 221 ff.).
The interpretation of Rev. 20 depends partly on how this particular vision is seen
in relation to the general structure of the book. Those who see the different visions
in Rev. as visions of successive events will be inclined to see this vision as the last
of a series, referring to a unique event immediately prior to the creation of a new
heaven and a new earth. On the other hand, there is a very strong case for seeing the
whole book as structured into seven series of visions, corresponding to the seven
days of the creation story in Gen. 1, each of which looks at the church in the gospel
age. The visions are thus seven sets of parallel visions of the church and its tribula-
tions between the two advents of Christ (— hepta NT 4). On this view the period of a
thousand years refers to the present era culminating in a final outburst of Satanic
activity prior to the final destruction of all the evils that afflict man.
According to this interpretation, the vision of the binding of Satan has its roots
in the saying of Jesus about the binding of the strong man who first has to be bound
before his goods may be plundered (Matt. 12:29 par. Mk. 3:27; cf. Augustine,
De civ. 20, 7). The activity of Jesus is itself evidence of the binding of Satan. It is
further defined in Rev. 20:3: “that he should deceive the nations no more, till the
thousand years were ended.” This would then refer to the spread of the gospel
among the Gentile nations which previously had been deceived by Satan. There is a
sense in which Satan has fallen in power already, and this is evidenced by the power
of the disciples over demons (Lk. 10:17 f.; cf. Col. 2:15). The event of Rev. 20:1-3
has already been described from another standpoint in Rev. 12:9 ff., and may also
reflect the saying in Jn. 12:31. The first resurrection refers to the reign of the saints
with Christ now (cf. 4:2-10; 5:6-13; 7:9-17; 8:3; 12:5; 14:3, 5; 19:4 f.; 22:1, 3).
The thought may reflect Jn. 5:24 (cf. Jn. 3:18; Col. 3:1). Such a scheme of inter-
pretation is in harmony with that of Jesus and Paul, neither of whom speak of a
period of a thousand years and into whose teaching such a period could not easily
be inserted (Matt. 24:4-36 par. Mk. 13:5-37, Lk. 21:8-36; cf. 1 Cor. 15:20—28;
1 Thess. 5:1 ff.; 2 Thess. 2:1-12). Moreover, neither Jesus nor Paul (nor, for that
matter, John in Rev.) speaks of two second comings of Christ: one before the
millennium and one subsequent to it. It would, therefore, seem best to recognize
702
NUMBER
the symbolic character of the apocalyptic language of Rev. 20 and see in the passage
an eschatology which is already in process of realization. C. Brown
— First, Firstborn, — Goal, — King, Kingdom, — One, Once, Only, — Pentecost,
—» Present, — Time
On numbers in general:
(a). G. A. Barton, ‘“Number”’, Encyclopaedia Biblica Ul, 1902, 3434-39; I. T. Beckwith, The
Apocalypse of John, 1919, 250-54; R. E. D. Clark, ‘“‘The Large Numbers of the Old Testament —
Especially in Connection with the Exodus’’, Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 87,
1955, 82-90 (see also the discussion, ibid., 145-52); J. J. Davis, Biblical Numerology, 1968; G. R.
Driver, ‘““Sacred Numbers and Round Figures’”’, in F. F. Bruce, ed., Promise and Fulfilment Essays
Presented to S. H. Hooke, 1963, 62-90; A. M. Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St
John’s Apocalypse, 1949, 245-60; S. Gandz, ““Complementary Fractions in Bible and Talmud”’,
Louis Ginsberg Memorial Volume, 1945, 143-57; R. A. H. Gunner, ‘“‘Number’’, NBD, 895-98; T.
Heath, A History of Greek Mathematics, I-II, 1921; E. Konig, ““Number”’, HDB III 560-67;
L. A. Muirhead, ‘‘Number’’, DAC II 92-96; O. Neugebauer and A. Sachs, Mathematical Cunei-
form Texts, 1945; O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 1957; M. H. Pope, ‘“‘Number’’,
IDB Ill 561-67; O. Rihle, arithmed, arithmos, TDNT I 461-64; E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 1966; J. W. Wenham, “‘Large Numbers in the Old Testament’’,
TB 18, 1967, 19-53 (reprinted as a separate monograph, no date); W. White, Jr., ““Number’’,
ZPEB IV 452-61. |
(b). H. Bardtke, ‘‘Zahl”, EXL III 1883; A.Bea, ‘““Der Zahlenspruch im Hebraischen und Ugariti-
schen”’, Biblica 21, 1940, 196 ff.; O. Becker, Das mathematische Denken der Antike, 1957; W.
Foerster, ‘‘Bemerkungen zur Bildsprache der Offenbarung Johannis’”, in O. Bocher and K.
Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas. Festschrift ftir Gustay Stahlin, 1970, 225-36 (especially 227-31);
P. Friesenhahn, Hellenistische Wortzahlmystik im Neuen Testament, 1935; A. Heller, Biblische
Zahlensymbolik, 1936; E. Kautzsch, “‘Zahlen”, RE XXI 598 f.; K. Menninger, Zahlwort und
Ziffer, I, 1957, 127 ff.; O. Neugebauer, Vorgriechische Mathematik, 1934; A. Schimmel and W.
Funk, ‘“Zahlensymbolik’”’, RGG* VI 1861 ff.; K. Sethe, Von Zahlen und Zahlworten bei den alten
Agypten, 1916.
On particular numbers:
(a). P. R. Ackroyd, ‘‘The 153 Fishes in John xxi. 11 — A Further Note’’, JTS New Series 10, 1959,
94: H. Balz, tessares etc., TDNT VIII 127-39; F. H. Colson, ‘““Triangular Numbers in the New
Testament”, JTS 16, 1914-15, 67-76; G. Delling, treis, tris, tritos, TDNT VIII 216-25; J. A.
Emerton, ‘““The Hundred and Fifty-three Fishes in John xxi. 11”, JTS New Series 9, 1958, 86-89;
C. L. Feinberg, ‘“‘Tithe’’, ZPEB V 756 ff.; R. M. Grant, ‘“‘ ‘One Hundred and Fifty-three Large
Fish’ (John 21:11), H7TR 42, 1949, 273 ff.; H. H. Guthrie, Jr., ‘‘Tithe’, DB IV 654 f.; F. Hauck,
deka etc., TDNT II 36f.; E. Lohse, chilias, chilioi, TDNT IX 466-71; F. R. McCurley, “ ‘After
Six Days’ (Mark 9:2); A Semitic Literary Device’, JBL 93, 1974, 67-81; B. M. Metzger, ““Seventy
or Seventy-two Disciples?’’ Historical and Literary Studies, Pagan, Jewish and Christian, New
Testament Tools and Studies VIII, 1968, 67-76; C. L. Mitton, ““Threefoldness in the Teaching of
Jesus”, ExpT 75, 1963-64, 228 ff.; K. H. Rengstorf, hepta etc., TDNT II 627-35; and dédeka etc.,
TDNT II 321-28; H. F. D. Sparks, ‘“‘The Partiality of Luke for Three’’, JTS 37, 1936, 141-45.
(b). E. von Dobschiitz, ‘“‘Zwei- und dreigliedrige Formeln’”’, JBL 50, 1931, 117-47; O. Eissfeldt,
Erstlinge und Zehnten im Alten Testament, 1917.
On the millennium:
(a). J. W. Bailey, ‘“The Temporary Messianic Reign in the Literature of Early Judaism’’, JBL 53,
1934, 170-87; G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, New Century Bible, 1974, 287-92;
I. T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, 1919; H. Bietenhard, ‘‘The Millennial Hope in the Early
Church’’, SJT 6, 1953, 12-30; L. Boettner, The Millennium, 1957; S.J. Case, The Millennial Hope,
1917; R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, 19132; R. D. Culver,
Daniel and the Latter Days, 1957"; J. Daniélou, ““Millenarianism’’, EBT II 582 ff.; and A History
of Early Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicea, 1, The Theology of Jewish Christianity,
1964, 377-404; G. E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 1972; E. Lohse, chilias,
703
NUMBER
chiliot, TDNT (X 466-71; J. A. MacCulloch, ‘‘Eschatology’’, ERE V 373 ff.; M. Rist, ‘‘Millen-
nium’, /DB Ill 381 f.; J. F. Walvoord, ‘“‘Amillennialism in the Ancient Church’, Bibliotheca
Sacra 106, 1949, 291-302; and The Rapture Question, 1957; ‘‘Millennium’’, ZPEB IV 228; B. B.
Warfield, ‘““The Millennium and the Apocalypse’, The Princeton Theological Review, 5, 1904,
599-617 (reprinted in Biblical Doctrines, 1929, 643-64).
(b). W. Bauer, ‘‘Chiliasmus’”, RAC II 1073-78; H. Bietenhard, Das tausendjahrige Reich, 1955?;
J. Daniélou, ‘““La Typologie Millénariste de la Semaine dans le Christianisme Primitif’’, Vigiliae
Christianae 2, 1948, 1-16; B. Gatz, Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen, 1967;
A. Gelin, “‘Millénarisme’’, Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement 5, 1957, 1289-94; L. Gry, Le
Millénarisme dans ses Origines et son Développement, 1904; H. Kraft, ‘“‘Chiliasmus’’, RGG?
I, 1651 ff.; E. Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, NTD \\, 1960, 20 ff., 74f.; A. Luneau,
L’ Histoire du Salut chez les Péres de |’Eglise, 1964; W. Nigg, Das ewige Reich, Geschichte
einer Sehnsucht und einer Entduschung, 1934; SB Ill 824 ff.; R. Schmidt, ““Aetates Mundi’,
Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 67, 1956, 288-317; H. Schuhmacher, Das tausendjahrige Konig-
reich Christi auf Erden. Eine biblische Untersuchung im Lichte des Fortschreitens der gottlichen
Heilsoffenbarung und Heilsgeschichte, 1964; J. Sickenberger, ‘‘Das tausendjahrige Reich in der
Apokalypse’’, Festschrift S. Merkle, 1922, 300-15; G. Siedenschnur, “‘Chiliasmus’’, EKL I 683 ff. ;
A. Wikenhauser, ‘“‘Das Problem des tausenjahrigenden Reiches in der Apokalypse”’, Rémische
Quartalschrift 40, 1932, 13-27; ‘“‘Die Herkunft der Idee des tausendjahrigen Reiches in der
Apokalypse’”’, Rémische Quartalschrift 45, 1937, 1-24; and ‘‘Weltwoche und tausendjahriges
Reich”, Theologische Quartalschrift 127, 1947, 399-417.
704
Offence, Scandal, Stumbling Block
Two groups of words are here linked: the key nouns are proskomma and skandalon.
Originally their meanings were different. Already in the LXX, however, each had
taken on the special force of the other. It was in the LXX that both groups first
became closely related to human life; both in denotation and connotation the Gk.
words were modified by the OT and Judaism.
—————.. | 2 pdokoupa (proskomma), stumbling, offence, obstacle;
| 7 POOKOMLG | ; é ;
1 pookonn (proskopé), an occasion for taking offence or
making a false step; zpooxontq@ (proskopto), strike, beat against, stumble, be
offended ; axpdaxonoc (aproskopos), without offence, giving no offence, blameless.
CL The vb. proskopto (from Aristoph. onwards), derived from koptd, smite,
strike, beat, knock (from Homer onwards), means trans. to strike or knock
against; intrans. to knock oneself against, trip, or fall. Metaphorically it means
both to give and to take offence. proskomma (not found earlier than the LXX)
means the cause, the process and the results of the offence, and so an obstacle,
offence, fall, damage, destruction. proskopé (from Polyb. onwards) —in the NT
only in 2 Cor. 6:3 — means the offence, the dislike which causes one to take offence,
the cause and reason for taking offence. The verbal adj. aproskopos, without offence,
is seldom found in secular literature; 1t means both giving no offence, unobjec-
tionable, blameless, and taking no offence, unhurt.
oT 1. Though this group of words is found in secular Gk., it first obtained a
theologically relevant meaning in biblical usage. In the LXX it is used pre-
dominantly for the Heb. words mdgés, a trap or snare, kaSal, to fall or cause to fall,
and also for ndgap, to hit, push; but these are also frequently rendered by — skan-
dalon, skandalizo.
Sin causes a fall. Though the God of Israel guards a man from tripping and
falling (Ps. 91:11 f.) and bears the title of the Rock of Israel’s strength and salva-
tion (Isa. 17:10; Deut. 32:15), he can become “‘a stone of offence”’ (Isa. 8:14) for the
apostate, godless man who does not fear him, so that he falls and perishes (—
Rock). The God of Israel is faithful, but he humbles those who do not reverence
him as the Holy One and fear him (cf. Ps. 18[17]:26). The cause of the — falling
is to be found in the sin and apostasy of the godless. Hence the people are warned
against the worship of heathen gods and fellowship with the heathen inhabitants
of the land, which would be a snare to them (Exod. 23:33; 34:12).
2. The OT usage lived on in late Judaism. ka@Sal and the noun miksé/ are found
705
OFFENCE
very frequently in the Qumran texts (cf. 1QS 2:12, 17; TDNT VI 749, 751; —
skandalon).
NT In the NT proskomma occurs 4 times in Rom. and once each in 1 Cor. and 1
Pet.; proskopté twice each in Matt., Jn. and Rom., and once each in Lk. and
1 Pet.; proskopé only in 2 Cor.; and aproskopos once each in Acts, 1 Cor. and Phil.
Usage follows the OT and has in the background the picture of tripping over a
stone and falling. The following 4 uses may be distinguished.
1. Christ remains obedient to God and true to his task. Hence neither Satan,
who alluding to Ps. 91:11 f. says that Jesus as God’s Son will not strike (proskopsés)
his foot against a stone (Matt. 4:6; Lk. 4:11), nor the threat of death by the Jews
in Jerusalem (Jn. 11:7—10: the only example of the root in the Johannine writings)
could cause him to fall and make his messianic mission vain. In the temptation
narratives the sense of proskopto is the lit. one of strike. In Jn. 11:9 f. the vb. 1s
used in the sense of stumble in the contrast: “‘Are there not twelve hours in the day?
If any one walks in the day, he does not stumble [proskoptei], because he sees the
light of this world. But if any one walks in the night, he stumbles [proskoptei],
because the light is not in him.”’ The reply is given in response to the warning that
the Jews were planning to stone him, and that Jesus therefore should not visit the
sick Lazarus. “‘It is a parable of crisis, in which Jesus seeks to impress on his hearers
the necessity of taking prompt action before the judgment falls. It is possible, but by
no means certain, that stumble is an allusion to the ‘rock of stumbling’ in Isa. 8:14,
alluded to several times in early Christian literature (cf. Rom. 9:32; 1 Cor. 1:23;
1 Pet. 2:6-8)” (B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, New Century Bible, 1972, 390). The
parable is similar to that in Matt. 6:22 f. par. Lk. 11:34 ff.; cf. also Gos.Thom. 24.
2. Christ is both the stone which serves as a foundation (— Firm, art. themelios)
for the church and the stone over which one can fall, the stumbling stone (Rom.
9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8; referring to Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Ps. 118:22; — Rock). This explains
why men, e.g. many Jews, do not come to salvation. Where Jesus and his message
are refused, man finds his eternal destruction (cf. also Lk. 2:34). Lk.’s version of
the saying about the corner stone presses the picture even further: ““Every one who
falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; but when it falls on any one it will
crush him”’ (Lk. 20:18). This combines the saying about the corner stone (Ps.
118:20; Isa. 28:16; cf. Lk. 20:17; Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)
with Isa. 8:14 f. which declares: ““And he [Yahweh] will become a sanctuary,
and a stone of offence, and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap
and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble thereon;
they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and be taken.’ But what was
said of Yahweh by Isaiah is said of Jesus in Lk. (cf. Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet.
2:4 ff.). According to Lk. 20:18, man will be broken by Christ in any case. He will
be either broken on him now, as Christ shatters his preconceived plans for his life,
or he will be broken by him in judgment.
3. Whether the disciple of Christ may cause offence to others is another matter.
Paul expressly forbids the strong to cause the weak to stumble and to hurt their —
conscience (Rom. 14:13, 21; 1 Cor. 8:9). Their freedom, though justified in itself,
must not cause others to — fall. This is the law of love. He who hurts the —
conscience of another creates an obstacle for the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 9:12 f., 19 f.).
706
OFFENCE
Paul enlarges the circle still further, when he says “‘Give no offence [aproskopoi...
ginesthe] to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32).
({Ed.] The ET “‘stumbling-block”’ was first introduced by William Tyndale in his
translation of Rom. 14:13: ““That no man putt a stomblinge blocke or an occasion
to faule [proskomma é skandalon]” (1526). Later translators preferred to use it for
skandalon. The phrase “‘to stumble at a block’’, i.e. a tree stump, is exemplified in
Capgrave’s Life of St. Gilbert 43, 123: “Sche stombeled at a blok which was hid
with straw and thus fel sodeynly.”’ After Tyndale the expression was used in the
senses of an occasion for moral stumbling, an occasion for falling into calamity,
an obstacle to belief, understanding, progress, and more rarely and late lit. of a
kind of threshold or object sticking up in a road.)
4. The day of Christ makes it particularly imperative that the Christian should
be without offence. Paul prays for the Christians in Philippi that they ‘“‘may be pure
and blameless [aproskopoi| for the day of Christ” (Phil. 1:10). Paul is not referring
only to external and ethical behaviour but also to the nature of a man’s relationship
to Christ (v. 9). His prayer is also a warning to the church. In his defence before
Felix Paul rebutted the accusations of Tertullus, declaring that “I always take
pains to have a clear conscience [aproskopon syneidésin| toward God and toward
men” (Acts 24:16), i.e. a conscience which has remained undefiled by sin.
J. Guhrt
oxdvéahov —_| okavoadov (skandalon), offence; cxavdahiCa@ (skanda-
| . lizé), give offence, lead astray.
CL The noun skandalon, from a root meaning jump up, snap shut, was originally
the piece of wood that kept open a trap for animals. Outside the Bible it is not
used metaphorically, though its derivative skandaléthron (e.g. a trap set through
questions) is so used. No non-biblical example of skandalizo has been found. The
Eng. word scandal is derived from the noun via the Lat. scandalum.
oT 1. Both words have been shaped by biblical language; the secular Gk. usage is
alien to biblical usage. The LXX uses them mainly to translate Heb. mdgé5,
bait or lure (cf. Amos 3:5), fig. a snare to destroy a person (cf. Ps. 141:9[140:8]; 1
Sam. 18:21) or to cause him to sin (cf. Jos. 23:13; Jdg. 2:3; 8:27; Ps. 106[105]: 36)
and miks6él, obstacle in the way of the blind (Lev. 19:14), fig. a cause of mis-
fortune (Ps. 119[118]:165) or of troubled conscience (1 Sam. 25:31). skandaliz6
occurs in Dan. 11:41 LXX for niph. of kasal and without Heb. equivalent in Sir.
9:5; 23:8; 35(32):15.
2. skandalon and skandalizé are not found in Philo, Josephus, Aristeas or
Hellenistic Jewish literature (TDNT VII 343), but they occur in the OT translations
of Aquila, and to a lesser extent Symmachus and Theodotion (skandalon only).
However, the metaphorical meanings were clearly understood in the NT period, and
they feature in the Qumran community with its conscious separation of the
righteous and godless and its more legalistic religion. The words kaSal (to stumble;
hiph. to cause to stumble; e.g. 1QS 3:24; 11:12; 1QM 14:5; 1QH 5:28, 36; 8:36;
16:5; 17:23) and miksol (offence; e.g. 1QS 2:12, 17; 4:15; 8:35; 9:21, 27; 10:18;
16:15; 17:4) occur frequently in the Qumran literature. All the spirits allotted
707 ©
OFFENCE
to the Angel of Darkness ‘“‘seek the overthrow of the sons of light” (1QS 3:24). On
the other hand, there is no cause for offence in God’s words. Hence, the word-
group becomes a metaphorical expression for sinning, leading to sin, and sin.
NT The NT usage has been fixed essentially by the OT. It is often based directly on
OT passages (e.g. Matt. 13:41 on Zeph. 1:3; Matt. 24:10 on Dan. 11:41 [ef.
RV and Heb.]; Rom. 9:33 and 1 Pet. 2:8 on Isa. 8:14). Both the noun and the vb.
are used frequently in Matt.; they are not so common in Lk. with its less Jewish
background. However, the same thought is often expressed in other words (e.g.
cf. Lk. 8:13 with Matt. 13:21). Though the word skandalon is not used, the thought
is found in Lk. 2:34: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in
Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against.”’ skandalizo occurs 14 times in Matt.,
8 times in Mk., twice in Lk., Jn. and 1 Cor., and once in 2 Cor. skandalon occurs 5
times in Rom., once in Lk., 4 times in Rom. and once each in | Cor. and Gal.
The original conception of a bait or trap is found only in Rom. 11:9 (‘‘pitfall’’,
RSV; quoting Ps. 69:22 [68:23]). Otherwise skandalon is used rather with the
thought of a stone or obstacle in the way, over which one can trip and fall. It
occurs as a synonym of — proskomma (cf. Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:3). When the sense
is to cause people to sin, the connotation of ‘‘trap”’ is still present (cf. Rev. 2:14).
1. If we omit Rom. 11:9, the following meanings are to be found.
(a) The noun means a temptation to sin, an enticement to apostasy and unbelief
(e.g. Matt. 18:7; Rev. 2:14; Rom. 14:13; 16:17 [“‘difficulties’”” RSV]; of persons,
Matt. 13:41; 16:23; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8). It is then used as that which causes
offence or scandal, or divisions, or hinders faith (e.g. 1 Jn. 2:10; 1 Cor. 1:23;
Gal. 5:11; Matt. 13:41).
(b) Correspondingly the vb. means to lead into sin, to give offence (e.g. Matt.
5:29 f.; 18:6; 1 Cor. 8:13 [in each case cf. RV with RSV}) In the passive it means to
take offence, fall away, be misled (e.g. Matt. 13:21; 24:10; Jn. 16:1; 2 Cor. 11:29),
to take offence at Jesus (e.g. Matt. 11:6; 13:57; 26:31, 33). It can further mean to
offend, provoke, allow to go astray, raise dissensions (e.g. Matt. 17:27; Jn. 6:61;
passively in Matt. 15:12 and perhaps 2 Cor. 11:29).
2. (a) The NT stresses that Jesus constantly becomes an offence. The expression
skandalizesthai en tini, be repelled by, take offence at, is always used of him. The
disciples took offence (RSV “‘fall away’’) at his — sufferings (Matt. 26:31), because
such suffering was incompatible with their preconceptions. Other instances of this
expression occur at Matt. 11:6; 13:57; 26:31, 33; Mk. 6:3; Lk. 7:23. When Peter
took offence in Matt. 16:22, his protestation was rejected by Jesus as a Satanic
suggestion. Jesus became an offence for John the Baptist (Matt. 11:6; Lk. 7:23),
because John had expected him to reveal himself as messiah in a different way. The
—» Pharisees took offence at Jesus’ teaching (Matt. 15:12), because it contradicted
their concept of the law, and of man’s co-operation with God’s grace. How deep-
rooted their offence was may be seen from Jesus’ comparison of them with weeds
to be rooted up (Matt. 15:13; cf. 13:24-30).
(b) The basis of the offence caused by Jesus is the — cross (1 Cor. 1:23), which
nullifies all human wisdom, and excludes all human co-operation in salvation (cf.
Gal. 5:11 with reference to circumcision). For the preaching of Christ crucified is a
skandalon to the Jews (in view of their rejection of him, his death on a tree which
708
OFFENCE
was self-evidently a sign of God’s curse [Gal. 3:13; cf. Deut. 21:23], and its
implications for the law including the practice of circumcision) and moria, foolish-
ness, to the Gentiles. This infuriating offence must remain, otherwise the gospel
will cease to be the message of salvation.
(c) The foundation of the offence caused by Christ is God’s decree. The quota-
tion, ““Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that
will make them fall” (Rom. 9:33, a conflated quotation from Isa. 8:14 and 28:16)
is interpreted in the NT, e.g., 1 Pet. 2:8 (‘A stone that will make men stumble, a rock
that will make them fall”) as referring to Christ. This passage explains why the
Jews are excluded at first from salvation, but not for ever (Rom.) and why in
general unbelief rejects Jesus (1 Pet.). In the offence we see an aspect of God’s —
election (cf. 1 Pet. 2:8, ‘‘as they were destined to do’’; and also Lk. 2:34).
Jesus and his — gospel become the cause of sin only when unbelief rejects the
salvation which he brings, because as he presented it, it did not correspond with
man’s expectations. While he who believes in him will not be put to shame (Rom.
9:33b; 1 Pet. 2:66), he who does not believe, stumbles at him (1 Pet. 2:8). It is
man’s blindness that makes Jesus an occasion for destruction. That is true of the
Pharisees (Matt. 15:14), and of the man who walks in darkness because he does
not love his brother (1 Jn. 2:11). But he who loves his brother finds no cause for
stumbling (1 Jn. 2:10). Many disciples found Jesus saying about his body’s being
life-giving food “‘a hard saying”’, and so took offence and drew back (Jn. 6:60 f.,
66). Such behaviour made the disciples guilty, for they saw no more than flesh in
Jesus (“‘the flesh is of no avail’’, Jn. 6:63).
In his eschatological discourse Jesus speaks especially of the offences of the last
days. Many will not bear the tribulations that will come over the church; they will
fall away and deny their Lord (Matt. 24:10). This will reveal the identity of true
believers. Matt. 13:41 is also to be understood eschatologically. ““The Son of man
will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin
[panta ta skandala] and all evildoers [tous poiountes tén anomian].” “All things
that cause stumbling” (RV), ‘‘all causes of sin” (RSV) are the persons called “‘the
sons of the evil one” (v. 38) who do unrighteousness. Then they will be separated
from the kingdom and the righteous; at the present time they are active in their
midst.
We can see the true character of offences only from an eschatological viewpoint.
They lead to destruction and exclusion from Christ’s kingdom. The fact that judg-
ment has not already fallen on them is not a sign that God condones them but that
the time of judgment is not yet ripe.
In his farewell discourse Jesus declares: ‘“‘I have said all this to you to keep
you from falling away [hina mé skandalisthéte]” (Jn. 16:1). He refers here especially
to the promise of the — advocate, paraclete or helper (Jn. 15:18-27), but also to
his preaching as a whole (cf. Jn. 6:63).
3. While there is an offence of the gospel, which must not be removed, there is a
human offence which must be avoided. Such offences are inevitable (Matt. 18:7b;
Lk. 17:1). They belong to the world and make it ripe for condemnation, but woe
to the man through whom they come. This is particularly true of those that offend
the “‘little ones’ who believe in Jesus (Matt. 18:6 par. Mk. 9:48; cf. Lk. 17:1; >
Large, Small, art. mikros). Jesus was probably thinking not only of — children, but
709
OFFENCE/OIL
of all those who need special help from the church because of their defencelessness
when they face the great and strong (> Weakness). It is easy to give these weak and
helpless ones who turn to Jesus an occasion for straying away from Jesus. He who
does this is subject to judgment. That is why the strong are exhorted not to cause
the weak to stumble (Rom. 14:13, 21; 1 Cor. 8:13), for it destroys the work of God
(Rom. 14:20).
We must also beware of falling ourselves by separating ourselves from God by
act (Matt. 5:30) or look (Matt. 5:29; — See, art. ophthalmos). The cutting off of
part of the body is not to be taken literally: those inclinations are to be rooted out
which could become fatal to a man as he meets the world around him (Matt.
5:29 f.; cf. 18:8 f.; Mk. 9:43-48; — Hand, art. cheir; on Matt. 19:12 — Eunuch).
One should also beware of the offences caused by a false doctrine, and avoid those
who create them (Rom. 16:17). J. Guhrt
—> Child, — Cross, — Fall, — Hard, — Rock, — Sin
(a). A. Carr, ‘The Use of skandalon and skandalizein in the New Testament”, The Expositor
Fifth Series 8, 1898, 344-51; and Horae Biblicae, 1903, 58-68; K. Fullerton, ‘““The Stone Founda-
tion’, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 37, 1920-21, 1-50; R. A. Knox,
Trials of a Translator, 1949, 66-73; T. W. Lewis, “‘ ‘... And if he shrinks back’ (Heb. x. 38b)’’,
NTS 22, 1975-76, 88-94; I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and
Falling Away, 1969; J. H. Moulton, skandalon, ExpT 26, 1914-15, 331 f.; J. Moffatt, ““Jesus upon
‘Stumbling-blocks’ ”, ExpT 26, 1914-15, 407 ff.; G. Stahlin, proskopté etc., TDNT V1 745-58;
and skandalon etc., TDNT VII 339-58.
(b). E. Fuchs, ‘“‘Das entymthologisierte Glaubensargernis”, Zum hermeneutischen Problem in der
Theologie, 1959, 230-36; A. Humbert, ‘Essai d’une théologie du scandale dans les synoptiques’’,
Biblica 35, 1954, 1-28; J. Lindblom, Skandalon. Eine lexikalisch-exegetische Untersuchung,
Uppsala Univ. Arsskrift, 1921; and “Zum Begriff ‘Anstoss’ im Neuen Testament”, Strena Philo-
logica Upsaliensis, Festschrift Per Persson, 1922, 1-6; K. Miller, Anstoss und Gericht. Eine Studie
zum jiidischen Hintergrund des paulinischen Skandalon-Begriffs, Studien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament 19, 1968; K. Schilder, ‘‘Over het ‘Skandalon’ ’’, Gereformeerd theologisch Tijdschrift 32,
1931, 50-67, 97-130; O. Schmitz, Vom Wesen des Argernisses, 19252; R. Schnackenburg, ‘““Vom
Argerniss des Kreuzes’’, Geist und Leben 30, 1957, 90 ff.; G. Stahlin, Skandalon. Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte eines biblischen Begriffes, 1930.
Oil, Olive, Gethsemane
flav i &Xalov (elaion), (olive-) oil; éAaia (elaia), olive tree,
| Olive (fruit); éAaid@v (elaidn), olive-orchard; aypiédaloc
(agrielaios), wild-olive; KadAAtédaioc (Kkallielaios), cultivated olive; Te@onpavi
(Gethsémani), Gethsemane, transliteration of Aram. gat §°mané, oil press.
CL elaion properly refers to the oil of the olive, which was by far the commonest
form of oil in use in the ancient world, though it was occasionlly used for other
oily substances. Olive oil was a regular part of the diet of most Mediterranean
peoples. It was also used as fuel for lamps, and for medicinal purposes. An im-
portant use in Greece was for anointing the body after bathing and before wrestling
and other sports. It features in Pliny, Nat.Hist. 15.
oT In the LXX elaion normally translates Heb. Semen, occasionally Heb. yishar.
The oil was normally that of the olive, though Semen can also denote a fragrant
ointment compounded from various spices with olive oil as its base. Oil was one of
710
OIL
the basic agricultural products of Palestine, and was a staple element in the diet
(1 Ki. 17:12-16; cf. the common formula “the corn, the wine and the oil’, e.g.
Deut. 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4, 51; 2 Chr. 31:5; 32:28; Hos. 2:8, 22;
Joel 2:19-24; Hag. 1:11). It was also used cosmetically (2 Sam. 14:2; Ps. 104:15;
Prov. 27:9; cf. Deut. 28:40), particularly at banquets (Amos 6:6; cf. Ps. 23:5),
and so is sometimes a symbol for joy (Ps. 45:7; Isa. 61:3). A fragrant oil was used
to anoint the priests. Anointing with oil became a symbol of investing with au-
thority, whether as — priest (Exod. 29:7; 40:15; Lev. 8:12, 30; 10:7; 21:10 ff.),
— king (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:1, 13; 1 Ki. 1:33; 2 Ki. 9:3, 6; 11:12), or (on at least one
occasion) — prophet (1 Ki. 19:16). Oil was used in the consecration of the taber-
nacle and its vessels (Exod. 40:9; Lev. 8:10; cf. Jacob’s anointing of the stone at
Bethel, Gen. 28:18; 35:14). In the temple ritual it was mixed with the cereal offer-
ings and in ritual anointing (Exod. 25:6; 27:20; 29:2, 7, 21, 40; 30:24f., 31;
31:11; 35:8, 14f., 28; 37:29, 37 f.; 39:38; Lev. 2:1-16; 5:11; 6:15, 21; 7:10 ff;
8:2; 9:4; 14:10-29; Num. 4:9, 16; 5:15; 6:15; 7:13-79; 8:18; 11:8; 15:4-9;
28: 5-18; 29:3-14; 35:25). It also provided fuel for the lamps (Exod. 27:20; Lev.
24:2). (For fuller details and discussion — Anoint, art. chrid; — Sacrifice; —
Temple.) In the teaching of the prophets oil figures chiefly in Ezekiel (16:9, 13, 18 f.;
23:41; 27:17; 32:14; 45:14, 24f.; 46:5, 7, 11;46:14f.), but references to oil are
occasionally found in other prophetic writings (Isa. 41:19; 61:3; Jer. 31:12; 40:10;
41:8; Hos. 2:5, 8, 22; 12:1; Joel 1:10; 2:19, 24; Mic. 6:7, 15; Hag. 1:11; 2:12). Oil
is mentioned in Pss. 23:5; 45:7; 55:21; 89:20; 92:10; 109:18; 141:5; and Prov.
S232 21172212 20;
elaia and elaion translate Heb. zayit, used both for the olive tree and its produce.
The olive-tree matures slowly, so that to grow olives and enjoy their fruit was a
common picture of a settled and prosperous condition. The fruitfulness of the
live makes it a suitable metaphor for those who enjoy God’s blessing (Pss. 52:8;
128:3), particularly Israel (Jer. 11:16; Hos. 14:6; Hab. 3:17).
NT 1. Most of the practical uses of the olive and its oil mentioned in the OT
reappear in the NT. Jas. 3:12 mentions the olive (elaia, for the fruit of the
tree) as a crop, and its oil as an item of commerce appears in Matt. 25:9; Lk. 16:6;
Rev. 18:13. Its use as fuel for lamps is attested in Matt. 25:3 ff.
The injunction in Rev. 6:6 to spare the oil and the wine even though there is to
be a famine of corn, is probably an echo of the standard OT formula, “‘the corn,
the wine and the oil”, the three major agricultural products: only one-third of the
produce is to be affected, and the rest spared, as in the following vision (‘‘a fourth
of the earth’’, verse 8) and in the plagues introduced by the seven trumpets in
chapters 8-9. It may also be significant that while corn is an annual crop, olives
and vines would take much longer to recover from devastation; it is, therefore, a
temporary period of famine, not total destruction. This point is reinforced by the
highly inflated price of wheat and barley which was a necessity more basic than oil
and wine. A quart of wheat was generally regarded as the amount of food that a
working man would eat in a day, and a denarius was a day’s wage for a labourer
(Matt. 20:2-13; cf. Mk. 6:37; Jn. 6:7). Thus an entire day’s wages would be spent
on wheat alone. A family could survive if they bought barley which was inferior.
The prices here are eleven to fifteen times those cited by Cicero for wheat sold in
711
OIL
Sicily (In Verrem 3, 81; cf. R. H. Charles, Revelation, ICC, I, 1920, 166 f.). The
wealthy could afford to be self-indulgent, but the rest will experience very hard
times. For similar statements in rabbinic writings about the days prior to the mes-
siah’s coming see Sotah 49a and Sanhedrin 97a (cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, The
Book of Revelation, New Century Bible, 1974, 133).
2. Matt. 6:17 suggests that the cosmetic use of oil was still normal in Palestine.
In Lk. 7:46 it is expected that the host would anoint his guest at a banquet; the
Pharisee’s neglect of this simple courtesy is contrasted with the woman’s lavish
use of the much more expensive myron, oil of myrrh.
The use of anointing with oil as a symbol of joy and honour in Ps. 45:7 is taken
up in Heb. 1:9 with reference to Christ, no doubt with the thought of his “‘anoint-
ing” for his messianic task (for which see Lk. 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38).
3. The medicinal use of oil on an open wound (cf. Isa. 1:6) is seen in Lk. 10:34,
and is in line with widespread current practice. The NT also mentions the practice
of anointing with oil in miraculous healing (Mk. 6:13; Jas. 5:14 only); here its
effect is not so much medicinal as symbolic, probably as a symbol of the protection
and blessing of God on the patient (— Anoint, aleipho).
4. The olive-tree is twice used as a symbol in the NT. In Rev. 11:4 the two
witnesses of God are described as “‘the two olive trees and the two lampstands which
stand before the Lord of the earth.”’ This is an allusion to Zech. 4:2—14, where the
two olive trees whose oil feeds the lampstand represent “‘the two anointed who
stand by the Lord of the whole earth’, normally taken to be Zerubbabel and
Joshua, whose combined leadership was the channel of God’s power to enable
Israel to live up to its calling. The two witnesses represent the faithful witness of the
church, particularly the Christian martyrs, and the point of the allusion to Zecha-
riah’s vision is that their faithful witness, in the power of the Spirit (cf. Zech. 4:6),
is the channel of God’s power to fulfil his purpose in a hostile world. (See further
J.G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TC, 1972, 118 ff.; R. H. Charles, op. cit.,
282 ff.)
In Paul’s famous allegory in Rom. 11:17—24 the olive tree represents the people
of God. The cultivated olive (Kallielaios) is Israel, from which some of the branches
were broken (many Jews rejected Christ, and so lost their place as God’s people),
while shoots of wild-olive (agrielaios) were grafted in their place (the inclusion of
Gentiles in the people of God). Eventually, however, God is able to graft the
natural branches back into their own stock (Jews who ‘“‘do not persist in their
unbelief” will be restored, and so “‘all Israel will be saved’’). The stock remains the
same; it is only in the branches that changes occur. So Israel, the people of God,
is a continuous entity (cf. the OT use of the olive as a symbol for Israel), but its
membership is subject both to the exclusion of native Israelites and the inclusion of
the alien stock of Gentile believers. (The agrielaios is not an uncultivated specimen
of the kallielaios, but a different species, probably the oleaster.)
Many commentators assume that Paul’s theology is better than his knowledge of
horticulture. But, while modern agriculturalists would look askance at the attempt
to graft the oleaster on to the olive, this is independently attested in ancient time as
a device to rejuvenate an unproductive olive (cf. W. M. Ramsay, Pauline and Other
Studies, 1906, 219-50). Philo applied a similar figure of speech to Israelites and
proselytes (Exsec. 6; cf. O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer, KEK 4, 19661°, 275 ff.;
712
O1L/OLD
SB III 291). Where Paul does, quite consciously, go beyond nature is in the belief
that after branches have been cut off, ““God has the power to graft them in again.”’
This is the miracle of God’s grace. (See further M. M. Bourke, A Study of the
Metaphor of the Olive Tree in Romans 11, 1947.) |
5. The Mount of Olives (or Olivet, from Lat. olivetum, olive-orchard) is the
ridge on the east side of Jerusalem, across the Kidron valley, on which olive-
orchards still grow. It must be crossed by a traveller entering Jerusalem from the
east, and so is mentioned in the accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem
(Matt. 21:1 par. Mk. 11:1, Lk. 19:28). Its commanding view of the temple area
accounts for Jesus’ lament there over Jerusalem’s impenitence (Lk. 19:29—44),
and his teaching there on the approaching ruin of the temple (Matt. 24:1-3 par.
Mk. 13:1-4, Lk. 21:5-7). Somewhere on this ridge Jesus and his disciples spent
the nights of his last week (Lk. 21:37), probably in the estate known as Gethsemane
(‘‘oil-press’’, so presumably an olive-orchard) to which they went after the last
supper (Mk. 14:26, 32), and which was their regular rendezvous (Jn. 18:1-2).
Gethsemane was the scene of Jesus’ final commitment to his redemptive suffering,
and of his arrest. It was also on the Mount of Olives that Jesus’ ascension to heaven
took place (Lk. 24:50-51; Acts 1:12); Acts 1:11, taken with Zech. 14:4, has led
to the conclusion that it will also be the scene of his return.
—» Anoint, — Incense, — Light, — Sacrifice, — Temple R. T. France
(a). G. A. Barrois, “Olives, Mount of’’, JDB III 596-99; M. M. Bourke, A Study of the Metaphor
of the Olive Tree in Romans 11, 1947; R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, U1, 1955, 101-4;
A. T. Hanson, ‘‘Christ the First Fruits, Christ the Tree’, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theo-
logy, 1974, 104-25; F. B. Huey, Jr., “Oil”, ZPEBIV 513 ff.; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of
Jesus 1969, 6f., 55; C. Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, 1963, 335-50; H. N. and A. L.
Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 1952, 97 ff., 157-60; W. M. Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies,
1906, 219-50; J. F. Ross, ‘“‘Oil’’, JDB III 592 f.; W. E. Shewell-Cooper, ‘‘Oil Tree”, ZPEB III 515;
and “‘Olive, Olive Tree”, ZPEB III 528; H. Schlier, aleiphoé etc., TDNT I 229-32; and elaion etc.,
TDNT II 470-73; J. C. Trever, ‘“‘Oil Tree’’, /DB III 593; and “Olive Tree’’, 7DB III 596.
(b). G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina, IV, 1935, 153-290; I. Low, Die Flora der Juden, II,
1924, 286-95.
Old
[dla mada (palai), formerly, earlier; zadatdc (palaios), old;
| madalotyc (palaiotés), age, obsoleteness; zadalow
(palaioo), grow old, make or treat as old.
CL palai (from Homer onwards), Aeolic pélyi, belongs etymologically to the word-
group associated with téle. The original meaning of distant, far away, focuses
on the earlier or past in contrast with the present (cf. telos, the end). palaios (also
from Homer onwards) is commonly used in secular Gk. meaning old: (a) positively
as existing for a long time and hence venerable; (b) negatively as obsolete, worn out,
and hence worthless, unusable (cf. Soph., Oedipus Rex 290, etc.). Often archaios,
original, venerable, is used in the same sense, but almost always positively. palaiod
(from Plato onwards) is found only in the pass. in secular Gk.
oT In the LXX palaios has mostly the meaning of old, last year’s, antiquated (cf.
Lev. 25:22). It formally translates the Heb. yasSan, old, last year’s. palaioo
713
OLD
translates in the LXX (a) ‘dtéq (trans.) cause to pass away (cf. Job. 9:5), and (intrans.)
pass away, fall into decay (cf. Job 14:18), reach old age (cf. Job. 21:7); and (b)
balah be worn out (cf. Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Jos. 9:5, 13; Neh. 9:21). In this latter sense
palaioo is used metaphorically in the exilic and post-exilic writings of the OT for
the growing old and transience of man’s life and work, and also of heaven and earth
(cf. Ps. 32:3; Isa. 50:9; Job 13:28). By giving mankind and the whole creation over
to decay and corruption God passes judgment on the sin and fall of mankind (Isa.
51:6; Ps. 102[101]:26).
NT 1. In the NT palai points to something which lies in the recent or remote past:
e.g., God spoke ‘‘of old’? (Heb. 1:1); they would have repented “long ago”’
(Matt. 11:21 par. Lk. 10:13; Jude 4); “‘old”’ sins (2 Pet. 1:9); if he were “‘already”’
dead (Mk. 15:44); “‘all along” (2 Cor. 12:19).
2. In palaios and palaiotés the old, obsolete past stands in contrast with the
completely new (— New, arts. kainos, neos). The salvation of God in Jesus Christ
has already broken into this age and made it obsolete together with its institutions
and practices (2 Cor. 5:17; cf. Mk. 2:21 f. on fasting; Rom. 7:6 on the law; 1 Cor.
5:7 on sin). The final fulfilment is still awaited. With the coming again of the
Lord this age will be brought to an end and world-history completed (2 Pet. 3:13;
—> Present).
(a) The parabolic words of Matt.9:16f. par. Mk. 2:21 f., Lk. 5:56f. are
probably to be understood in this context, though we cannot be completely sure.
Probably they were originally independent, everyday sayings which Jesus used’ to
show that the age of the old world had passed and that the age of salvation had
begun. The old, obsolete, world-age is compared with an old garment (v. 21) and
with old wine (v. 22). A garment (— Clothe, art. himation) and — wine were
traditional symbols of the cosmos or the age of salvation. In the synoptic context
the passage could also mean that the new excludes the old; the new age of salvation
demands a new manner of life which cannot be inserted in the old customs, such as
fasting and mourning. The old is fulfilled in the new (cf. Matt. 5:17) or, in the case
of the natural man, conquered.
The proverb of Lk. 5:39 in this context is evidently ironical: “‘And no one after
drinking old wine desires new; for he says, ‘The old is good’”’ (some MSS read
“better”; on the word there —> Good, art. chréstos). It implies that men (in the
context those who cling to the Jewish traditions) are incorrigibly attached to the old
familiar ways.
In Matt. 13:52 Jesus says: ‘“Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the
kingdom of heaven [pas grammateus mathéteutheis té basileia ton ouranon| is like a
householder [oikodespoté] who brings out of his treasure what is old and new
[kaina kai palaia].”’ Here the scribe is seen as a steward (— House, art. oikonomia)
who knows both the old, the message of the OT scriptures, and also their fulfilment
in the radically new, the message and person of Jesus. The saying stands at the
conclusion of Matt.’s account of the parables of the sower, the mustard — seed,
the — leaven, the tares, the treasure hidden in a field, the pearl of great price and
the fish net. The mention of the householder and the kingdom links up with previous
themes. The picture of the — disciple as a scribe is a particularly Matthaean
perspective (cf. 23:34; — Scripture). Some scholars see in this an element of Matt.’s
714
OLD
Jewishness. At any rate, the disciple in Matt. does what the scribe should be doing,
i.e. expound the scriptures as they are fulfilled by Jesus (Matt. 5:17 f.). This is,
moreover, what Matt.’s Gospel itself seeks to do (e.g. Matt. 1:22 f., cf. Isa. 7:14;
Matt. 2:5 f., cf. Mic. 5:2; Matt. 2:15, cf. Hos. 11:1, Exod. 4:22; Matt. 2:17 f., ef.
Jer. 31:15; Matt. 2:23, cf. Isa. 11:1; Matt. 3:3, cf. Isa. 40:3; Matt. 3:15; —
Fullness, art. plérod; cf. also R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St.
Matthew, Supplements to NovT 18, 1967; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testa-
ment, 1971; K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 19687). There may be a play
on words between the name of Matthew (Matthaios) and the words ‘“‘who has been
trained” (lit. “become a disciple’, mathéteutheis) which would further support the
view that Matt.’s Gospel exemplifies the dictum here. The scribe was not simply
the copyist of the scriptures in post-exilic Judaism; he was the authorized teacher
and theologian who interpreted the law (cf. D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew,
New Century Bible, 1972, 240). But it should be noted in this saying that the ‘‘scribe”’
in question is not in the first instance trained in the law. He is trained in the —
kingdom and thus is able to bring out old and new from his treasure. In this respect
he stands in contrast with those scribes who were trained in “‘the tradition of the
elders” (Matt. 15:1-20 par. Mk. 7:1-23) who for the sake of human tradition
make void the word of God (Matt. 15:6; cf. also Matt. 23:1-39). Like Jesus him-
self, the scribe trained in the kingdom of heaven is able to bring out the true
treasure from the law and the prophets.
(b) In Paul and Hebrews the opposition between old and new is to be understood
in the same way as in the Synoptics. Baptism represents the death of the old man
and the birth of the new. In the picture of the old and new man we have no doubt
part of the primitive Christian baptismal exhortation (Rom. 6:6; Col. 3:9; Eph.
4:22 — Baptism; — Body; — Clothe; — Destroy; >» Man). The “old” means
everything connected with the fall of man and with his subjection to the distress
and death of a transitory life, separated from God. In this concept we can hear
deep undertones of God’s wrath and the wages of sin. At the same time we are
pointed to the completely new, to that healing and salvation which are given to
man when he is crucified with Christ and raised with him (Rom. 6:3 ff.).
palaiotés, age, obsoleteness, what is outdated, occurs only at Rom. 7:6, where
Paul emphasizes the incompatibility of the old and the new as ways of salvation
and life: we serve in the newness of Spirit and not in the oldness of letter (en
kainotéti pneumatos kai ou palaiotéti grammatos). Paul has been appealing to the
analogy of divorce: a woman is bound to her husband by the law as long as he
lives. She is only free to marry someone else if the husband dies. The law is power-
less to do anything else. Paul then modifies the picture. By dying to the law “‘through
the body of Christ” (Rom. 7:4), the believer is ‘discharged from the law, dead to
that which held us captive” (7:6a). But if we are dead to the law, we are free to
serve in the Spirit. The law is thus dead in that it cannot give life but can only
condemn (cf. 7:10 ff.). Life comes as something — new apart from the law and thus
makes the letter of the law old (in that it came first) and obsolete (in that it is
superseded by the Spirit of Christ) (cf. Rom. 7:6 with 8:5-11; and 2 Cor. 3:6).
(On the place of the law in Paul’s thought — Law art. nomos NT 2; — Goal, art.
telos NT 1; >I Am, art. eg6 eimi NT 2 (c).)
Because Jesus is the new man, and he who believes in him is also born again to a
715
OLD/ONE
new — life, the old life, alienated from God, is dead. It is without power or rights,
and so it must daily be given over to — death. In 1 Cor. 5:7 f. Paul alludes to an
OT commandment (cf. Exod. 12:19; 13:7; Deut. 16:3 f.). Just as the last remnants
of the —> old leaven must be eliminated before the Passover (—> Feast, art. pascha)
so the evil and crookedness of the old life, the old leaven of sin and disobedience,
must be cleared out to make room for the new life of sincerity and obedience (1
Cor. 5:6-8). Jesus’ message and work bring the new which is promised in the OT
and fulfils the old, or deprives it of power. The old life of legality cannot, therefore,
be reconciled with faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 7:6).
Heb. 8:13 takes up the promise of the new — covenant of Jer. 31:31-35: “In
speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete [pepalaidken]. And what
is becoming obsolete [palaioumenon] and growing old [géraskon] is ready to vanish
away.” This is entirely God’s work. Seeing that God in Christ makes a new cove-
nant, the old covenant of the law has become obsolete. In Christ the first can be
regarded only as old and fulfilled (2 Cor. 3:14). Indeed, it may be said that the
NT speaks of the old only from the standpoint of the new and for the sake of the
new.
3. palaios is used in quite another sense only in | Jn. 2:7. The writer of the letter
is not communicating a new commandment to his readers, but the old command-
ment which they had known from their conversion, “‘from the beginning’’. In the
context of 2:1-6 “‘old refers to the primitive Christian tradition and not to Lev.
19:18” (H. Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe, HNT 15, 19513, ad loc.).
—> Age, — Covenant, — Law, — New H. Haarbeck
(a). H. Seesemann, palai etc., TDNT V 717-20.
(b). R. Bultmann, Der alte und neue Mensch in der Theologie des Paulus (reprint of three older
articles), 1964; F. Hahn, ‘‘Die Bildworte vom neuen Flicken und vom alten Wein’’, EvTh 31, 1971,
357 ff.
One, Once, Only
The NT uses three different sets of terms to express that someone or something is
unique or occurs only once. Their theological interest lies in the passages where they
are used in connection with God or Christ. In general terms monos thus has a
polemical connotation, in the contrast with other gods, saviours and religions.
heis is used to confess the oneness and uniqueness of God. hapax and ephapax
stress the once-and-for-all nature of God’s actions in history, especially in Jesus.
| dmacg | dnaé (hapax), once; éfamaég (ephapax), once for all.
CL hapax is compounded of ha- (= heis in compounds) and pax (from pégnymi,
make firm, bring together; cf. pagos for anything that is firmly and surely
brought together). Its fundamental meaning therefore includes numerical singu-
larity and completeness which needs no additions.
oT In the LXX hapax renders Heb. ’ehdd (masc.), ’ahat (fem.), one (e.g. Exod.
30:10; Ps. 62[61]:11; and pa‘am, a beat, footfall, time (e.g. Neh. 13:20; Ezr.
23:20 LXX). The two Heb. words come together at Jos. 6:3, 14, meaning once, and
716
ONE
Isa. 66:8, meaning at once. The rabbis interpreted ’ahat in Hag.2:6(“‘Forthus says the
Lord of hosts: Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth
and the sea and the dry land’’) as only once more, implying the need for special
readiness and watching in view of the coming of messianic kingdom (SB III 750).
NT 1. hapax is found only 14 times in the NT: 3 times in Paul and 8 in Heb., once
in 1 Pet., and twice in Jude. It means once in contrast to twice, thrice, etc. (2
Cor. 11:25; Phil. 4:16; Heb. 9:7), and once in the sense of an event that cannot be
repeated. It is so used of the sacrificial death of Christ (Heb. 9:26 ff.; 1 Pet. 3:18)
and negatively of OT sacrifice (Heb. 10:2), of God’s saving activity (Jude 3 and 5)
and judgment (Heb. 12:26 = Hag. 2:6). With the once-for-all-ness and finality of
Jesus’ saving work the NT writers contrast the once-for-all-ness and finality of
human reaction, either in faith or in unbelief. Those who have once found mercy
cannot be restored to repentance if they — fall away (parapesontas) (Heb. 6:4 ff.),
just as those whom God brought out of Egypt were destroyed because of their
unbelief (Jude 5).
The derivative ephapax is not found in pre-Christian writings. In 1 Cor. 15:6 it
means “‘at one time’’, i.e. together, as opposed to separately. In the other 4 cases
where it is used (Rom. 6:10; Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10) it means once for all and is
used of the sacrificial death of Christ.
2. The theological importance of both terms lies in the fact that they stress the
historical nature of God’s revelation. Just as God revealed himself to Israel in
history, when he brought him out of — Egypt, so he revealed himself to his cove-
nant people, once, unrepeatably and finally in Christ. This is of decisive importance
in confrontation with those religions where salvation is an ideal concept based on
the mere idea of deity and divorced from history (as in gnosticism).
In contrast to the situation of the OT covenant people Heb. argues that, since the
sacrificial death of Jesus once for all, we are now in the end time (ephapax, Heb.
10:10; heis, Heb. 10:12, 14). The contrast is drawn between the single, complete
act of Christ and the repeated sacrifices of the old covenant which are seen to have
been temporary and imperfect from the very fact that they had to be repeated every
year. Otherwise those that brought these sacrifices and worshipped God through
them would have ceased to bring them. They would have been once purified and
would have had no more consciousness of sin (Heb. 10:2) As mere — shadows
(skia) of the future and perfect sacrifice, of Christ, they served merely to bring
sins to mind (Heb. 10:3, anamnésis hamartion) and so to point to the One to
come.
This indicates that the very nature and purpose of the OT sacrificial system were
not to purify finally and once for all but to point to the final sacrifice and purifica-
tion and hence to require repetition (Heb. 10:2 f.). The one true and finally valid
sacrifice is Jesus, who is both the sacrifice and high priest in one. Just as man
finally dies and faces the judgment, so Jesus’ giving himself in death to put away
sins is once for all and final (Heb. 9:26 ff.). It is this that distinguishes the activity
of the Son made perfect for ever (Heb. 7:27 f.) from that of the earthly high priest
with his temporal sacrifice, with its limited validity, offered daily for himself and the —
people.
The author of Heb. sees the death of Christ as the once-and-for-all sacrifice and
717
ONE
the resurrection and ascension of Christ in terms of the high priest entering the
Holy Place on the day of atonement (Heb. 9:12; 10:12; cf. Lev. 16). Only the high
priest was permitted to do this, which he did only once a year. Having offered
sacrifice, he entered the Holy Place taking with him the blood of the sacrifice on
behalf of the entire people of God. Christ has entered the immediate presence of
God through his heavenly exaltation by his own blood to represent his people
before God and obtain for them eternal salvation (cf. Heb. 9:14 with 10:19—25).
This is the basis of the Christian faith and Christian way of life.
In Rom. 6:10 Paul writes : ““The death he died he died to sin, once for all [ephapax],
but the life he lives he lives to God.” The statement comes at the climax of a
discussion of the problem of antinomianism. If men are saved by “‘the free gift in
the grace of that one man Jesus Christ’? (Rom. 5:15) which abounds for many and
not because of anything that they do to deserve it, then why not go on sinning that
grace may abound (Rom. 6:1)? Paul replies that baptism implies baptism into
Christ’s death (Rom. 6:3), and that just as he was raised by the glory of the Father,
we too should walk in the newness of life (Rom. 6:4). The whole purpose of his
death was to free men from the enslavement of sin (Rom. 6:5-—9). This he has done
once for all; and now he lives to God (Rom. 6:10). “So you also must consider
yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus’ (Rom. 6:11). Since the
crucified Christ is eternally exalted, ‘“‘the act of Golgotha is the decisive turning
point in history” (G. Schrenk, “Die Geschichtsauffassung des Paulus auf dem
Hintergrund seines Zeitalters”, Jahrbiicher der Theologischen Schule Bethel, 3,
1932, 68).
The finality and unrepeatability of the historic act of salvation is paralleled by
the finality of personal salvation. If it is frittered away, it is also unrepeatable.
‘For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once [hapax]
been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers
of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers
of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God
on their own account and hold him up to contempt” (Heb. 6:4 ff.). The theme of
apostasy is a recurring one in Heb. which issues repeated warnings against it (cf.
Heb. 3:1-4:16; 6:1-20; 10:26-39; 12:1-29; 13:1 ff., 20 ff.). On the four things
mentioned here (been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, partaken of the Holy
Spirit, tasted the goodness of the word of God and the mighty works of the age to
come) see F. F. Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 1964, 118-24; I. H. Marshall,
Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, 1969, 136 ff.
Jude 3 urges its readers ‘“‘to contend for the faith which was once for all [hapax]
delivered to the saints.” “Clearly the faith is not the believing man’s response to
Christ (the fides qua creditur), but is to be concretely understood as the fides quae
creditur, i.e. the message or body of saving beliefs accepted as orthodox in the
Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, BNTC 1969, 247; cf. also
v. 20). The source of this teaching is ultimately God himself, but it is mediated by
the apostles and other human agents (cf. Jude 17 with Lk. 1:2; Acts 16:4; Rom.
6:17; 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:1 f.). The emphasis on a body of
truth in opposition to heretical doctrines is more pronounced in later NT writings
such as the Pastoral Epistles (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3; 4:6; 2 Tim. 2:2; 4:3 f.; Tit. 1:9).
But as Kelly points out, ‘“‘the idea of tradition, of the gospel as an authoritative
718
ONE
message committed to and handed down in the Church, was integral to Christi-
anity from the start” (op. cit., 248; cf. Rom. 10:8; 16:17; 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:1-3;
Gal. 1:23; 6:10; — Teach, art. paradiddmi). Jude 5 goes on to remind the readers
that they ‘‘were once fully informed [eidotas hapax panta]” of the fact that “‘he
who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did
not believe.” ““Here as in 3b, we have a sharper insistence that the apostolic faith
is a complete whole which has been definitely given to men and cannot be altered’”’
(Kelly, op. cit., 254). The warning against apostasy has the same point as that in
Heb. The repeated illustration in Heb. 3 and 4 and its use in 1 Cor. 10:1—5 to-
gether with the way that it is introduced here suggests that it formed part of com-
mon Christian instruction. (On the exodus theme in Christian thought see B. S.
Childs, Exodus: A Commentary, 1974, 230-39; A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the
Old Testament, 1965, 10-25, 48-65; and Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology,
1974; R. E. Nixon, The Exodus in the New Testament, 1963.) K.-H. Bartels
EIC ic (heis), one; évotnc (henotés), unity.
cL The masc. form heis derives from Indo-European *sem-s (cf. homos, — Like);
the fem. form mia from *sm-ia; and the neut. hen from *sem (cf. Liddell-Scott,
492).
In pre-Socratic nature philosophy to hen, the one, refers to the ultimate unity of
being, eternity, that which has not become, the non-transient, underived, simple
being (the Eleatic school). Parmenides described being as a sphere, perfect in itself
and uniform, and this unique, uniform world-body is at the same time the world-
concept, simple and excluding all peculiarities. (On Pre-Socratic thought see W.
K. C. Guthrie, 4 History of Greek Philosophy, I, The Earlier Presocratics and
Pythogoreans, 1962; II, The Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus,
1965; and more briefly “‘Pre-Socratic Philosophy” in P. Edwards, ed., The Encyclo-
pedia of Philosophy, V1, 1967, 441-46.)
The Sophists applied these fundamental concepts to ethics. Since all being is
absolutely identical, every value judgment becomes impossible. Socrates opposed
these doctrines, and posited an abiding unity which would be recognized by all
over against the change and multplicity of opinions. The basis for such universally
recognized demands is universally valid concepts (cf. W. K. C. Guthrie, Socrates,
. 1971; 1. G. Kidd, “Socrates”, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, VII, 480-86). Plato
taught a world of ideas in which reality increases until it reaches its peak on the
highest incorporeal idea of the One as the good, divine, world-intellect. The many,
the physical, and the lower are clearly differentiated from it (on Plato see A. E.
Taylor, Plato, 1926; and G. Ryle, ““Plato’’, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, VII, 314—
33). For the Stoics, however, all existence is ultimately a unity. The divine penetrates
everything and manifests itself in diversity, creating order and furnishing a unitary
law. All that happens is necessary by the nature of things. The rational is that
which is in unison with nature as a whole regarded as divine. The soul of man is
by its nature one with the world-soul (on Stoicism see P. P. Hallie, “‘Stoicism’’,
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, VIII, 19-22).
In gnosticism the divine world of life, light, spirit is originally and remains by
719
ONE
nature one. In a pre-cosmic catastrophe pieces of it were broken off and handed
over to the evil, the dark, and the many (creation of the world). The goal of the
cosmic drama is the collecting and returning of all the scattered fragments of the
Spiritual and divine into the unity of God. The marks of the divine, true and good
are unity, calm, peace; those of the evil, worldly and physical are manifoldness,
scattering, lack of peace. (For literature on gnosticism — Knowledge.)
oT 1. The OT terms are ’ehdd (masc.) and ’ahat (fem.) meaning: (a) one (Gen.
1:9); (b) the first (Gen. 8:5), especially in summaries (e.g. Gen. 2:11); (c) the
one... the other (Exod. 18:3); (d) one after the other (Isa. 27:12); (e) one with
another (Ezek. 33:30); (f) one to another (Job 41 :16[8]); (g) any one (Gen. 26:10);
(h) one and the same (Gen. 27:45); (i) one alone, the only one (Isa. 51:2) (—
monos). The plur. is **hadim, some, a few (Gen. 27:44).
The unity of God is particularly stressed in Deut. 6:4. The MT has “Hear O
Israel: YHWH ’*lohénti YHWH ’ehdd [lit. Yahweh our God Yahweh one].” This has
been variously translated: ““The LorD is our God is one LORD” (RSV), “‘the Lorp
our God, the LorD is one’, “the LorD is our God, the LorD is one’’, “the LORD 1s our
God, the LorD alone”’ (all RSV mg.), ‘‘the LorpD is our God, one LorD” (NEB).
LXX has “[The] Lorp our God is one Lorb [Kyrios ho theos hémon heis estin].”
Thus the RSV follows the LXX rendering of the Heb. (For discussion of the decla-
ration see G. Quell, TDNT III 1079 ff.; and for the passage in general -- Command;
—> God, art. theos OT; —-> Hear; — Love.)
In the older strata of the OT Israel still spoke of the existence of other gods (e.g.
1 Sam. 26:19 [ironic]; Exod. 15:11). Explicit monotheism became increasingly
dominant from the 7th cent. B.c. (e.g. 1 Ki. 8:60; Jer. 2:11; and especially in Isa.
41:29; 43:10; 44:8). But the unique reality of God was firmly anchored in the faith
of Israel from the first. This forms the basis for the call to unity among the people
(Mal. 2:10). The words of Deut. 6:4f. form the s*ma‘, i.e. the daily confessions
by Jews of the unity of God, the basic creed of Jud., by which its separates itself
from all paganism and idolatry (cf. the martyrdom of R. Akiba who died with a
long drawn out ’ehdad on his lips; Ber. 61b; T. J. Ber. 2:4a: 61; cf. SB I 224).
2. The unambiguous monotheistic character of later Judaism may be seen in the
fact that ‘‘the One” became a surrogate for God (cf. SB II 28 on Mk. 12:29).
NT 1. Survey of the use of heis in the NT. (a) As a simple numeral. (i) One (Matt.
5:41; Jn. 9:25). We find the same stress on one as in Judaism (e.g. Matt. 26:14;
5:18; Jas. 2:10; cf. also Matt. 23:15). One thing can be decisive (Mk. 10:21; cf.
Matt. 19:21; Lk. 18:22); the plagues of judgment come on one day (Rev. 18:8);
there is one sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 10:12, 14; —- hapax). This means that heis
comes to stand parallel to monos (e.g. Mk. 2:7 [heis]; Lk. 5:21 [monos]). The one,
only, last son has a particularly high rank (Matt. 21:37; Mk. 12:6; Lk. 20:13).
The one who repents is more valuable than the ninety-nine who do not need to
repent (Lk. 15:7). God’s will finds its climax in one decisive word and command
(Gal. 5:14). Gi) The one...the other (Matt. 24:40 f.; 6:24). (iii) Each (Matt.
26:22 [RSV and NEB do not distinguish this usage from that in Mk. 14:19, see
(iv)]; 1 Cor. 12:18 f.). (iv) One after the other (Mk. 14:19). (v) The first (Matt.
28:1); — First, art. protos. (vi) One and only (Mk. 2:7; cf. Lk. 5:21; — monos);
this can be explained by Heb. usage.
720
ONE
(b) The one God and Father. The Shema (Deut. 6:4; see or 1 above) is quoted
in Mk. 12:29, cf. v. 32. Jas. 4:12 declares that “‘there is one lawgiver and judge.”
In warning against the temptation to exalt oneself to positions which only God can
occupy Matt. records the words: ‘“‘But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have
one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for
you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one
master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8 ff.). The uniqueness of God is asserted over against
idols in the controversy over eating meat offered to idols (1 Cor. 8:4 ff.). This
means that there is but “‘one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for
whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and
through whom we exist”’ (v. 6). Therefore, idols have ‘“‘no real existence”’ (v. 4).
Nevertheless, on grounds of love and expediency Paul urges the Corinthians not to
eat meat that has been first offered to idols. Eph. 4:3 urges unity and peace in the
church on the grounds of the unity of God: “There is one body and one Spirit,
just as you were called in one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith,
one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and
in all’ (Eph. 4:4 ff.). 1 Tim. 2:5 is a parenthetical reminder that all men have to do
with the same God: ‘‘For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus.’’ He it is ‘““‘who desires all men to be saved and to
come to the knowledge of the truth” (v. 4). Therefore, it is appropriate to pray for
all men, including kings and those in positions of authority. There is a unity of
mankind which derives from man’s common origin at the hands of “‘the God who
made the world and everything in it” (Acts 17:24): ‘‘And he made from one every
nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods
and the boundaries of their habitation” (v. 26). There is one abiding will of God
(Matt. 5:17 f.), and in conformity with the will of this one God there is one church
composed of Jews and Gentiles. One of the main themes of the Epistle to the
Romans is to demonstrate the continuity of the divine purposes revealed in the OT
in the light of the work of Christ and the inclusion of the Gentiles: ““Or is God
the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
since God is one, and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith
and the uncircumcised because of their faith” (Rom. 3:29 f.).
(c) The one God in the one Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one exclusive teacher,
Lord and mediator (Matt. 28:8, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; 1 Tim. 2:5). He is the
One who stands before the Father on behalf of all (Jn. 11:50; 2 Cor. 5:14). Adam,
the disobedient one, brought death; Jesus, the obedient One, brought life (Rom.
5:12 ff.; cf. 1 Cor. 15:22; Adam). He is one with God the — Father (Jn. 10:30;
17:11, 21 ff.). He is the one Lord, with one — faith and — baptism (Eph. 4:5), the
one — shepherd with one flock (Jn. 10:14 ff.).
(d) The One God in the one Spirit of Christ. Paul bases his teaching on the
multiplicity of gifts in the church and the necessity of order and harmony in their
use on the unity of the Spirit who is the giver of the gifts (1 Cor. 12:9, 11, 13).
Jews and Gentiles are no longer alien in Christ, ‘‘for through him we both have
access in one Spirit to the Father’ (Eph. 2:18). There should be unity in the church
because ‘‘there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope
that belongs to your call” (Eph. 4:4). The word henotés, unity, occurs only in
Eph. expressing the unity of the church in maturity which is based on the divine
721
ONE
unity: “‘eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (4:3);
“until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ (4:13).
(e) The one church of the one Lord. (i) There is a unity of believers with their
Lord. There is also a unity of man and woman which comes about through sexual
intercourse. For this reason the believer should not join himself to a prostitute
(1 Cor. 6:16; cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mk. 10:8; Eph. 5:31; — Discipline,
art. porneud; —> Flesh; > Marriage). The believer’s union with Christ is not a
physical one but a spiritual one: ““But he who is united with the Lord becomes one
spirit with him” (1 Cor. 6:17; cf. the marriage analogy of Christ and the church in
Eph. 5:28-33; Rev. 21:2; and the images of the — body and — head).
(11) In Heb. 2:11 “tout of one” (ex henos; RSV “one origin’ ; NEB “‘of one stock’’)
points to the closest possible unity of believers with Jesus, which is here uniquely
expressed in terms of “‘brothers” in the quotation in v. 12 from Ps. 22:22. There
is also a unity of believers in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12 f.; Gal. 2:28; Col.
3:15) through and in the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:4). The unity of the Lord and his
lordship causes the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, which was broken
down at the cross, to be abolished for good and all, for now there exists only the
one, new people of God in Christ (Eph. 2:13-16; Jn. 11:52; 17:23; 17:11, 21).
This is a particular emphasis in Jn. Those who are made one have a common
life (1 Cor. 12:26; Gal. 6:2; Acts 4:32; Phil. 2:2; Rom. 15:6). Conversely those
who are in rebellion against God are one (Rev. 17:13).
2. The Theological meaning of heis in the NT. Unity in the NT is always seen from
the standpoint of Christ: “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other
name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”’ (Acts 4:12). In
Gk. and Roman philosophy the unity of God and the world is demanded by
educated reason. In the OT the unity of God is a confession derived from experi-
ence of God’s unique reality. The decisive advance in the NT, caused by God
himself, is the basing of the unity and uniqueness of God on the unique revelation
through and in the one man Jesus Christ, the Revealer and Lord (Matt. 23:8 ff.;
1 Cor. 8:4 ff.; Eph. 4:1-16; 1 Tim. 2:5 f.).
That is why Paul, after saying in 1 Cor. 8:4 that there are no real idols in the
world and that there is no God but One, can recognize in the following sentence
that there are in fact many gods and lords. But (and this is the justification for
the original statement) these gods have no reality and are therefore only “‘so-called
gods’’. They have no claim to lordship over us. If we ask why Paul used the term
God in this dialectic way, the answer seems to be: the true unity and uniqueness,
and hence the reality, of the one God comes from the fact that for us, i.e. for our
gain, there is one Lord Jesus Christ (v. 6). We should not take v. 6 as consisting
of two parallel statements simply joined by kai (and). Rather we must interpret
kai as meaning: just in the way and with the reality in which we have one Lord
Jesus Christ.
This is expressed particularly clearly in Jn. Jn. 10:30 should not be interpreted to
mean that the oneness of Jesus with the Father consists of the joining of two persons
or beings who were formerly separated. We must understand it in the light of Jn.
14:9: ““He who has seen me has seen the Father.”’ In a Christian sense no one can
speak of God unless he is speaking concretely of Jesus. Statements like Jas. 4:12
122
ONE
obtain a living meaning only in the light of Jesus. Indeed, the unity of the Spirit
is based on Jesus (1 Cor. 13; Eph. 4), not on a unity of outlook based on human
enthusiasm.
The ‘‘one man Jesus Christ”? (Rom. 5:15) is decisive for the salvation of “‘the
many.” He died for all the one decisive death (Jn. 11:50, 52; 2 Cor. 5:14; >
hapax NT). The obedient death of the one is interpreted by the “much more’”’ of
Rom. 5:17. The one man Adam became a curse for humanity, “‘because all men
sinned” (Rom. 5:12); in contrast the one man Jesus Christ brought righteousness
and life for all (Rom. 5:17).
Rom. 5:12-20 contrasts the rdles of Christ and -> Adam as the respective heads
of saved and fallen humanity. Sin came into the world “‘through one man and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom.
5:12). “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s
trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that
one man Jesus Christ abounded for the many. And the free gift is not like the effect
of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemna-
tion, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of
one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who
receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through
the one man Jesus Christ’? (Rom. 5:15 ff.; cf. also Jn. 11:50, 52; 2 Cor. 5:14).
The foundation and continuity of the church’s unity are grounded in him as the
one shepherd of the one flock (Jn. 10:14 ff.). Paul expresses this fact through his
picture of the one — body, in which the members are linked and are mutually
dependent, a picture used also by the Stoics. The several members cannot live in
diversity without the one — head (1 Cor. 12). The counterpart to this in the high
priestly prayer in Jn. 17 is the concept of mutual indwelling: Jesus prayed “that
they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also
may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me’’ (Jn. 17:21).
K.-H. Bartels
[ pdvog CS LLovog (monos), alone, only; povoyevyc (monogenés),
| only (preferable to ‘“‘only begotten’’).
CL monos, Ionic mounos, Doric monos from Homer on, means only, lonely, alone;
sou monos, without you; monos panton anthropon, (he had) no other of all men.
In an extended sense it means unique. The adv. monds or monon (neut.) means only,
solely. The LXX and the NT do not preserve the variety of usage which existed in
cultured Gk. The use of the adj. and adv. run into one another, and the adv.
monos 1s not found, nor the use with the gen. On the other hand, the form kata
monas, alone, does occur. All this shows that monos is used in the NT as in Koine
Gk.
oT The LXX uses monos mostly for /*bad or (/°) baddd (78 times as against 14 for
the other Heb. terms), derived from bad, that which has been separated. Its
basic meaning is in separation from, or in solitude from. Thus in Exod. 30:34 bad
b°bad yihyeh (RSV “‘of each shall there be an equal part’’) means that the various
spices must be taken separately without contact with each other, and only then be
mixed to form —> incense (v. 35). To be alone does not imply peace but a troubled
723
ONE
mind and restlessness. The bad connotation cannot be missed and comes out clearly
in a passage like Isa. 49:21 and Jer. 15:17, where the prophet, bent down by God’s
hand, and cut off from human contact with the other members of his people, sits
alone. This sense is also found in Gen. 2:18. God says that it is not good for the
man to be alone; “I will make a helper fit for him.”’
monos 1s frequently used for God’s uniqueness; e.g. Deut. 32:12 (as leader of the
people); Job 9:8 (as Creator). It occurs in the confessional statements in 2 Ki.
19:15, 19; Isa. 37:16. It is frequently found in Pss. (4:8; 33[32]:15; 51[50]:4;
71[70]:16; 72[71]:18; 77[76]:14; 83[82]:18; 86[85]:10; 136[135]:4, 7; 141[140]:10;
148 :13). Hence it is often used in statements about the exclusive worship of the one
God: e.g. Exod. 22:20(19); Deut. 6:13 (v./. in LXX); Ps. 71(70):16. Ezek. 14:16
shows that the righteous alone will be delivered. Exod. 24:2 uses monos to stress
—> Moses’ uniqueness. Occasionally, as in secular Gk., monos is intensified. Thus
in 1 Ki. 19:10, 14, where — Elijah, persecuted by Jezebel, says in his despondency
that he has survived mondétatos, utterly alone, as prophet of the Lord. The despair
of this extreme solitude stands in contrast to the superior strength and numbers of
the worshippers of Baal which had remained intact in spite of God’s judgment in
1 Ki. 18.
NT 1. monos is found 46 times in the NT and monon 66 times. They are found most
frequently in Paul (13 and 36 times) and John (9 and 5 times), while neither is
found in 2 Pet., Tit. or Phlm. The adj. is used in connection with vbs. like eimi
(be), heurisko (find), kataleipd (leave), and absolutely with nouns and prons. The
neut. monon is used as an adv. It means: (a) only, alone (Matt. 9:21; 1 Cor. 15:19;
Lk. 24:12; Matt. 5:47); not only but also (Matt. 21:21); not only but much more
(Phil. 2:12); and in the limiting sense of not yet but only (Acts 8:16); (b) alone,
without others, unaccompanied (Matt. 17:8 par. Mk. 9:8; Jn. 8:16; Rom. 11:3);
kata monas, alone by oneself (Mk. 4:10; Lk. 9:18); single (Jn. 12:24); alone with-
out help (Lk. 10:40), alone with, face to face (Matt. 18:15); (e) with noun or pron.
it means only in the sense of exclusively (e.g. Matt. 12:4; Lk. 5:21 — heis, NT 1;
Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15 f.; Heb. 9:7; Gal. 6:4; Rev. 15:4); (d) one and
only (Jn. 5:44; 17:3; Jude 4, 25).
2. monos becomes theologically significant when it is used in the confession of the
one and only God, especially in doxologies (Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15 f.;
Jn. 5:44). Rom. 16:25 ff. refers to God’s command “‘to bring about the obedience
of faith” among the nations, and 1 Tim. 6:12-16 calls on Timothy to keep the
confession — the context shows the polemical background of the confession — of
the one God. It is significant that the confession of the one holy God in Rev. 15:4
is found in the song of praise of the martyrs who “had conquered the beast.”
Similarly in Jn. 17:3, monos is linked with aléthinos, true, in contrast to the decep-
tive appearance (pseudos) of all alleged gods and revealers, and in Jn. 5:44 it stands
in contrast to the false doxa (— glory) of the world, which does not seek the true
doxa of the one and only God (cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 271,
n. 3; E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 1913, 245 n. 1).
monos is sometimes used to stress the uniqueness of God in polemical contexts.
Thus Jesus, the Revealer and Son of God, is declared to be monogenés (see 4 below).
There is a dialectic use of monos in relation to Jesus. On the one hand, already the
724
ONE
earthly Jesus in not “‘alone”’ in human terms even if all forsake him, for the Father
is with him (Jn. 8:16, 29; 16:32). On the other hand, in Jude 4 the uniqueness of
God can be applied without qualification to Jesus (cf. Rom. 9:5 (RSV mg., NEB
mg.); Jn. 20:28; Tit. 2:13). On Rom. 9:5 — God, art. theos NT 6(a).
4. monogeneés, the only begotten, or only, is found as a christological title
only in Jn. Matt. and Mk. use agapétos, beloved (Matt. 3:17 par. Mk. 1:11; Matt.
17:5 par. Mk. 9:7). Paul has ho heautou hyios (Rom. 8:3), ho idios hyios (Rom.
8:32), his own Son, or ho prototokos, the first-born (Rom. 8:29). monogenés is used
to mark out Jesus uniquely above all earthly and heavenly beings; in its use
the present soteriological meaning is more strongly stressed than that of origin
(Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9). RSV and NEB render monogenés as “‘only’’.
This meaning is supported by R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, Anchor
Bible, I, 1966, 13 f., and D. Moody, “‘God’s Only Son: The Translation of John
3:16 in the Revised Standard Version’’, JBL 72, 1953, 213-19. Lit. it means ‘“‘of a
single kind”, and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2).
It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of “‘only begotten’ goes back
to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus
was not begotten but made. monogenés reflects the Heb. yahid of Isaac (Gen. 22:2,
12, 16) of whom it is used in Heb. 11:16. The meaning of monogenés “‘is centred in
the Personal existence of the Son, and not in the Generation of the Son’”’ (B. F.
Westcott, The Epistles of St John, [1883] 1966, 170). Jesus as monogenés is the One
who can say “I and the Father are one [hen esmen]’ (Jn. 10:30). Included in the
uniqueness of God, Jesus does not disappear in history and the historical, but stands
over them as Lord. | K.-H. Bartels
—> First, — God, — Number
(a). E. Best, One Body in Christ, 1955; F. Biichsel, monogenés, TDNT IV 737-41; S. Hanson, The
Unity of the Church in the New Testament: Colossians and Ephesians, Acta Seminarii Neotesta-
mentici Upsaliensis 14, 1946; H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion 1963; E. Kasemann, The Testament of
Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17, 1968; G. A. F. Knight, ‘“‘The Lord
is One’’, ExpT 79, 1967-68, 8 ff.; D. Moody, ““God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in
the Revised Standard Version’’, JBL 72, 1953, 213-19; C. A. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of
Yahweh in the Old Testament, 1966; N. Lohfink and J. Bergman, ’ehdd, TDOT 1 193-201; T. E.
' Pollard, “‘ ‘That They All May Be One’ (John xvii, 21) — and the Unity of the Church’’, ExpT 70,
1958-59, 149 f.; J. F. Randall, The Theme of Unity in John XVII: 20-23, Dissertation Louvain,
1962; H. H. Rowley, ‘“‘Moses and Monotheism’’, ZA W 28, 1957, —21 (reprinted in From Moses to
Qumran: Studies in the Old Testament, 1963, 35—63); W. Stahlin, hapax, ephapax, TDNT I 381-84;
E. Stauffer, heis, TDNT II 434-42; and ‘The Creeds of the Primitive Church’’, New Testament
Theology, 1955, 235-57, see especially ‘“Monotheistic Formulae”, 242 ff.; E. L. Wenger, “‘That
They All May Be One’’, ExpT 70, 1958-59, 333; B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, (1883)
revised edition with introduction by F. F. Bruce, 1966, 169-72.
(b). J.-L. d’Aragon, ““La Notion Johannique de I’Unité’’, Sciences Ecclésiastiques II, 1959, 111-19;
G. Delling, ““Monos Theos’, TLZ, 1952, 469 ff.; E. L. Dietrich, ““Gott”, RGG?* II 1713 ff.;
E. Fascher, ““Gott und die Gotter’’, TLZ, 1956, 279 ff.; H. Jonas, Gnosis und spdtantiker Geist, I,
1934; II, 1, 1954; O. Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, 1922; E. Kaésemann, Das wandernde Gottes-
volk, FRLANT Neue Folge 37, 19593; F. Klinke, Der Monismus, 1911; E. Peterson, Heis Theos,
1926; G. Sauer, ’ehdd, THAT I 104-7; K. Schelkle, “‘Das Gottesbild des Neuen Testaments’: Gott
der Eine’, BuK 15, 1960, 12 ff.; H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser, 1965°; G. Schrenk, ‘“‘Die
Geschichtsanschauung des Paulus auf dem Hintergrund seines Zeitalters’”’, Jahrbiicher der Theo-
logischen Schule Bethel 3, 1932, 59 ff.; W. Stahlin, Allein. Recht und Gefahr einer polemischen
Formel, 1950; W. Thising, Herrlichkeit und Einheit. Eine Auslegung des hohepriesterlichen Gebets
Jesu (Joh. 17), 1962.
125
OPEN
Open, Close, Key
dol avolyw (anoigd), open; advoicéic (anoixis), opening;
| avoly dltavotyw@ (dianoigd), open, explain.
CL Since Homer (//. 14, 169; 24, 455) anoignymi occurs together with anoigdéd
meaning to open, remove that which obstructs, though not at first in the pres.
tense. The pres. of anoigo is first found in Pindar, and of anoignymi in Lysias. The
-mi-forms are the more original ones. Figuratively it can mean to reach the high
seas; thalattan is to be supplied. In the NT the original form is replaced by the
adjunct form without exception. This is in line with the decline of vbs. in -mi in
Koine (Funk §§ 92, 101). The vb. can be used trans. (to open a door, a place, an
object, a part of the body) and intrans. (to open; partly in the pass. sense of to be
opened).
oT In the LXX anoigoé is used predominantly (106 times) as the equivalent for the
Heb. vb. patah; 10 times for padgah, both meaning open; 6 times for pdsah,
unlock, open up; and in isolated passages for further Heb. vbs. pdsdh, as a rule
followed by peh as obj., means to open the mouth (in order to swallow, Ezek. 2:8).
paqah is used exclusively for opening one’s eyes and ears (e.g. Gen. 21:19; Isa.
35:5; 37:17). With pdatah the object can be a container (a bag, a box, a vessel, a
grave; e.g. Exod. 21:33; Jdg. 4:19; Ps. 5:9), a window or a door (1 Sam. 3:15;
2 Ki. 13:17; Isa. 22:22; 26:2), or a book (Neh. 8:5). If the act of opening is related
to men, it is usually God who is the subject; objects include the womb (Gen. 29:31);
the mouth (Exod. 4:12, 15; Num. 22:28; cf. Ps. 81:10); the eye (Gen. 21:19; Isa.
35:5; 42:7); the ear (Isa. 50:5); the hand (Ps. 145:16). It is a striking fact that
patah is not found in passages attributed to the Priestly Code. Gen. 7:1la is
widely regarded as P; but 7:1lb ‘‘and windows of heaven were opened”’ is
thought not to be P. Num. 19:15 is thought to be a quotation taken over by P.
The absence of the word has been explained on the basis of the theology of the
Priestly Code, which saw God as so transcendent that access to him was possible
only through the priest and the cult. To use padtah would contradict such a tran-
scendent view of God; for padtah presupposes a view of God in which God inter-
venes, not indirectly, but directly in, e.g., opening a man’s mouth.
NT In the NT the vb. anoigé is found 78 times, particularly often in the Johannine
literature (27 times in Rev.; 11 times in the Gospel). It is less frequently found in
Matt. (11 times) and Lk. (16 times in Acts; 7 times in the Gospel). It occurs only 5
times in Paul (Rom. 3:13; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; 6:11; Col. 4:3) and in Mk.
only at 7:35. Following the LXX pattern the vb. is chiefly trans., and only rarely
intrans. (Jn. 1:51; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 6:11). The sole occurrence of anoixis (Eph.
6:19) has a trans. meaning in Paul’s request for prayer “that utterance may be
given me in opening my mouth [en anoixei tou stomatos mou] boldly to proclaim
the mystery of the gospel.”
Objects include (as in the LXX) the mouth (Matt. 5:2; 6:8 D; Lk. 1:64; Acts
8:35; 10:34; 18:14), the eye (Matt. 9:30; 20:33; Lk. 24:31; Jn. 9:10, 14, 17, 21,
26, 30, 32; 10:21; Acts 9:8, 40; 26:18), the ear (Mk. 7:35), a door (Acts 5:19;
12:10, 14; 14:27; 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Rev. 3:20), a place (Matt. 3:16) or an
object like a scroll (Rev. 5:2 ff.). If we leave aside consideration of those passages
726
OPEN
where “‘to open the mouth” means to begin to speak (e.g. Matt. 5:2; 13:35; Acts
8:35; 10:34), which make use of a Semitic idiom (cf. Job 3:1; 33:2; Dan. 10:16),
the vb. is used with a predominantly theological sense: It is God himself who opens.
1. In the writings of Paul anoigod occurs in the quotation from Ps. 5:9 in Rom.
3:13a in the catena of quotations demonstrating the fact that the Jews are guilty
sinners, even though they have the law: “Their throat is an open grave [taphos
aneogmenos], they use their tongues to deceive.” In 2 Cor. 6:11 Paul writes:
“Our mouth is open to you [to stoma hémon anedgen pros hymas], Corinthians; our
heart is wide.” C. K. Barrett paraphrases this as “I have let my tongue run away
with me’’, i.e. “I have spoken to you in complete freedom” (cf. 7:4; A Com-
mentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1973, 191). Barrett sees
here a Gk. idiom (cf. Aesch., PV 609 ff. with Ezek. 16:63; 29:21; Eph. 6:19).
The following clause means that Paul has kept no secrets back from the Corin-
thians. There not only is room for them in his heart; he positively yearns for them.
Apart from these instances, it is God himself who opens. The picture of God open-
ing a door for Paul refers to the possibility of fruitful and effective missionary work.
Form-criticism has shown that the expression is a technical term in the vocabulary
of mission (1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3; Acts 14:27; Rev. 3:8; cf. J.
Jeremias, TDNT III 174). But it is characteristic of Paul that he never uses anoig6é
with Jesus Christ as subject.
2. Rev. 3:20 speaks of man opening the door to Christ: “‘Behold, I stand at the
door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to
him and eat with him, and he with me.”’ The underlying idea is the kingdom of God
seen as a feast (Isa. 25:6 ff.; Matt. 8:11; 22:1-14; Mk. 13:29; 14:25; Lk. 12:34 ff;
22:28 ff.; but cf. the idea of the judge standing at the doors in Jas. 5:9). There are
also the promises of feeding on Christ himself (Jn. 6:35 ff., 53 ff.) and dwelling
with him (Jn. 14:2 f., 23). The context of Rev. 3:20 is the letter addressed to the
lukewarm church at Laodicea (— Cold, Hot, Lukewarm). As such it is addressed
to the church, but the singular subject of the verse invites an individual response.
Elsewhere in the Johannine writings God is the one who opens. It is God who
opens — heaven (Jn. 1:51; Rev. 19:11), the — temple (Rev. 11:19), and the holy
—> tent of heaven (Rev. 15:5). It is on his authority that an angel opens the abyss
of the underworld (Rev. 9:2). But the exalted Lord has the authority which
belongs to God to open the way of access to God. The letter to the church at
Philadelphia begins: “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The
words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no
one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens. “I know your works. Behold, I have
set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut....”’”’ (Rev. 3:7 f.).
The metaphor of the open door is not the technical term of the language of mission
(see 1 above). The key of David (— kleis) recalls the promise to Eliakim (Isa.
22:22) who was given authority to open and none shall shut and to shut and none
shall open. Here it is construed as access to God and eternal life, as in Rev. 1:18:
“IT died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and
Hades”’ (cf. also Matt. 16:19). It is the exalted Lord, the Lamb that had been slain
and who has ascended to the throne, who alone is worthy to open the scroll with
the seven seals which contains the record of God’s plan in history in the last days
with all the profusion of eschatological events (Rev. 5:2-9). The earthly Jesus is
727
OPEN
here seen as equal with God. The Fourth Gospel contains a counterpart to this in
the fact that Jesus opens the eyes of the blind which is something which God alone
can do (Jn. 9:10, 14, 17, 21, 26, 30, 32; 10:21). He is also the — shepherd to whom
“the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by
name and leads them out”’ (Jn. 10:3).
3. Matt. 2:11 speaks of the magi opening their treasures (~~ Magic; —> Gold;
—> Incense). Matt. also records Jesus opening the eyes of the blind (Matt. 9:3;
20:33; cf. Mk. 7:35). As in Jn., opening in Matt. is implicitly or explicitly the act
of God. It is God who opens the heavens at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16)
symbolizing the favour and openness of God to him and confirming the action
(cf. Jn. 1:51 noted above). To those who knock the kingdom of heaven will be
opened (Matt. 7:7; cf. 7:13 f.). But to those who do not come at the hour of
opportunity it will not be opened (Matt. 25:11). Here it is the eschatological Lord
who is speaking and who thus has the authority of God himself to open and shut.
Matt. 27:52 refers to the opening of the tombs and the raising of the dead at the
moment of the death of Jesus (— Resurrection). On the coin in the fish’s mouth
(Matt. 17:27) — Tax.
4. In the writings of Lk. anoigo is particularly associated with Lk.’s concept of
time (on the subject of time in Lk. — Present, art. The Parousia and Eschatology in
the NT, 2(b).) There is an appropriate time for the devil (Lk. 4:13). But there is
also an appropriate time for the opening of Zechariah’s mouth (Lk. 1:64) and the
opening of heaven after the baptism of Jesus (Lk. 3:21; cf. Matt. 3:16 above).
The public ministry of Jesus, and with it the centre of time, begins when Jesus
enters the synagogue at Nazareth and opens (Lk. 4:17) the book of the prophet
Isaiah and reads from Isa. 61:1 f. thus identifying himself with the one on whom the
Spirit of the Lord rests. As befitting the one on whom the Spirit rests, he is the one
who opens (Lk. 13:25) and the one to whom the servants must be ready to open
(Lk. 12:36). The sayings about asking, knocking and opening (Lk. 11:9 f.) are
rounded off in Lk. by the promise of the Spirit: “If you then, who are evil, know
how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father
give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?” (Lk. 11:13). This suggests that Luke
understood the sayings as having particular reference to the gift of the Spirit. He
follows it with the account of the Beelzebul controversy concerning the power and
authority by which Jesus acted (Lk. 11:14-26). The references in Lk. suggest that
the time to open and the authority to open ultimately rest with God.
Acts 8:35; 10:34 and 18:14 use the idiom of opening the mouth. Acts 8:32
quotes Isa. 53:7: ‘‘As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is
dumb, so he opens not his mouth.” This is interpreted christologically by Philip
to the Ethiopian eunuch. Acts 9:8, 40 refer to the opening of the eyes physically
(in each case after an affliction). But Acts 26:18 uses the metaphor spiritually in its
account of Paul’s commission to the Gentiles: ‘‘to open their eyes, that, they may
turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins and a place amongst those who are sanctified by faith
in me.” The words recall the mission of the servant (Isa. 42:6, 17), and in the light
of Lk. 4:17 constitute an extension of Jesus’ own mission. Peter’s vision of the
great sheet containing both clean and unclean animals signifying God’s inclusion
of the Gentiles in his people descends from heaven. The fact that heaven is opened
728
OPEN
in order to let down the sheet (Acts 10:11) signifies the divine origin and authority
of the vision. Several passages refer to the opening of doors. In Acts 5:19; 12:10
and 16:26 f. the doors are prison doors which are opened by divine agency. This
contrasts with the doors closed by men, either to imprison the apostles (Acts 5:23)
or which are kept closed by the church in incredulity (Acts 12:14, 16). Just as God
opens prison doors, he also opens “‘the door of faith’. Paul summed up his first
missionary journey by telling the church at Antioch “all that God had done with
them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27; on this
expression see | above).
5. The vb. dianoigo occurs in the expression “‘every male that opens the womb
[i.e. every first-born male] shall be called holy to the Lord” (Lk. 2:23; cf. Exod.
13:2, 12). The passage refers to the presentation of the infant Jesus in the temple
and the sacrifices that were offered for him (— Bird art. peteinon oT; —> First, art.
prototokos CL & OT 1). It is used again in the vision of Stephen just before his
martyrdom when he saw “‘the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the
right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). As with the other references to the opening of
heaven, it signifies God’s acceptance and blessing of the one who sees the heaven
opened, and is a divine confirmation of the rightness of his actions.
dianoichthéti, ““Be opened’’, is given as a translation of ephphatha (Mk. 7:34; cf.
v. 35) inthe healing of the deaf and dumb man. This Aram. word represents ’etpattah,
or the contracted ’eppattah, from the vb. p*tah (cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel
according to Saint Mark, 1959, 252; SB II 17 f. for examples in connection with the
curing of blindness). It is not a meaningless magical formula like abracadabra
but an intelligible performative utterance (—> Magic, art. mageia NT 5).
In Lk. 24:31 f. it is used of the eyes in the sense of the understanding (cf. Gen.
3:5, 7; 2 Ki. 6:17) in the self-disclosure of the Risen Christ to the disciples at
Emmaus. In v. 31 the reference is to recognizing the stranger as Christ. Upon recog-
nition he vanishes from physical sight. In v. 32 the same word refers to the under-
standing of the significance of the scriptures in relation to Jesus as the Christ. It is
also used of Paul’s missionary work among the Jews at Thessalonica: ‘“‘explaining
[dianoigdn] and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise
from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ’ ”’
(Acts 17:3). In each of these three instances of Lk.’s use of the word men require
help in order to see Christ. Both the understanding and the scriptures require
opening. (— Explain, art. herméneud NT 2.) C. H. Peisker, C. Brown
| KAEIC | KAéic (kleis), a key; KAeio (kleid), to close, shut.
CL The noun kleis, which is cognate with Lat. clavis (key), is used since Homer for
a key. kleid, similarly used since Homer, means to close, or shut. In addition to
lit. usage, kleis was used as early as the seventh cent. B.c. in connection with >
heaven and the underworld depicted as a house. Certain powers, demi-gods or
divinities, had control over the keys to heaven (e.g. Dike) or to the underworld
(e.g. Pluto, Persephone). The imagery of the key extended also into everyday life.
Thus Pindar (Pyth. 8, 4) could speak of rest as the most important key to delibera-
tion and to wars, i.e. rest is the chief prerequisite for reaching the right decision.
729
OPEN
oT In the LXX kleis occurs only 5 times (3 times as equivalent for Heb. maptéah).
This was the key to the great wooden doors, which possibly consisted of one
long piece of wood with various long iron spikes fixed on to it, and which as a rule
was so big that it could not fit in the pocket, but had to be carried on the belt or
even on the shoulder (Isa. 22:22). With this key one could turn backwards and
forwards the bolt of the door from the outside. One of the particular offices of the
Levites was to administer the keys to the rooms and store-rooms of the temple
(1 Chr. 9:27). The announcement in Isa. 22:22 of the installation into office of
Eliakim, giving him the power of the keys to the house of David, had originally no
messianic reference. In later rabbinic thought it was interpreted as conferring
teaching authority (Sanhedrin 38a; Gittin 88a; see further SB I 741). In Rev. 3:7
it was interpreted typologically and christologically (— anoig6d NT 2; see also below
4). kleis also occurs in Jdg. 3:25, in Job 31:22 (for SikmGh), and without Heb.
equivalent in Ad.Dan. Bel 12.
The vb. kleid occurs in Gen. 7:16; Jos. 2:5, 7; Jdg. 9:51; 1 Sam. 23:20; 2 Chr.
28:24; Neh. 6:10; 13:19; Job 12:14; Eccl. 12:4; Isa. 22:22; 24:10; 60:11; Ezek.
44:1 f.; 46:1 f. (for sagar, shut, close); in Neh. 7:3 (for gap, shut); in Cant. 4:12
(for na‘al, bar, of a garden gate); and without Heb. equivalent in Jdg. 20:42; Sir.
30:18; 42:6; Ad.Dan. Bel 12; and several variant translations of various passages.
NT The words occur comparatively rarely in the NT. k/eis occurs 6 times (once
each in Matt. and Lk.; and 4 times in Rev.), and is used only figuratively. kleio
occurs 16 times (3 times in Matt.; twice each in Lk., Jn. and Acts; once in 1 Jn.,
and 6 times in Rev.). It is used lit. of closed, shut or locked doors in Matt. 6:6;
25:10; Lk. 11:7; Jn. 20:19, 26; Acts 5:23; 21:30, although Matt. 25:10 and Lk.
11:7 figure in parables (in the former instance illustrating that the time of oppor-
tunity is past, and in the latter illustrating the importance of importunity in
prayer). Elsewhere the use of both the noun and the vb. is fig.
1. Lk. 4:25 refers to the time of — Elijah, ““when the heaven was shut up three
years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land” (cf. 1 Ki.
17:1-18:1; Jas. 5:17 f.). The point alludes to the fact that Elijah was sent not to all
the widows in Israel at the time of Elijah, but only to the widow of Zarephath. The
implication is that Jesus of Nazareth will pass over a rebellious Israel in favour of
the Gentiles.
2. Lk. 11:52 records the accusation: “‘Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken
away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those
who were entering.’’ Whereas the saying in Lk. refers specifically to knowledge,
the saying in Matt. 23:13 refers to the kingdom: “But woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for
you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.” J. Jeremias
cites Rabbah bar Huna (c. A.D. 300): ‘“He who has knowledge of the Torah but no
fear of God is like the treasurer to whom one gave the key of the inner rooms
without giving him the outer. How can he enter?” (Shabbath 3lab; cf. TDNT III
747). In Lk. the saying comes at the conclusion of Jesus’ denunciation of the reli-
gious for their hypocrisy, their misguided and perverse legalism, and their perse-
cution of the prophets sent by God. The same points occur in Matt. only in
considerably greater detail, and the saying introduces the specific accusations. The
730
OPEN
difference in the presentation of the saying has been put down to oral tradition (cf.
D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 311), and the possibility
that Jesus made the denunciation more than once and in different forms (Lk. speaks
of the key, whereas Matt. uses the vb.) in the course of his condemnation of the
religious teachers of his day. Alternatively, the two versions may be interpretative
translations: Lk.’s version with its reference to knowledge being addressed to a
Gentile readership; whereas Matt.’s is more specifically Jewish in his concern
for the kingdom and for the details of the condemnation of contemporary Jewish
practices.
3. Matt.’s account of Peter’s confession culminates in the promise: “‘And I tell
you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven” (RSV mg.). The authenticity of this passage has
been questioned by many scholars. G. Bornkamm sums up their attitude to these
words when he observes: ““This is not only because they have no parallel in the other
Gospels, and because this is the only place in the whole synoptic tradition where the
word ‘ekklesia’ appears in the sense of the church as a whole. (Only in Mt.
XVili. 17 do we come across the word ‘ekklesia’ again, in connection with Church
regulations, but used here in the sense of an assembly of the Church.) But the
authenticity of the passage in Matthew xvi is questioned chiefly because it is not
easily compatible with Jesus’ proclamation of the imminent coming of the kingdom
of God” (Jesus of Nazareth, 1960, 187). For further discussion questioning the
authenticity of the passage see the writings of H. Braun, R. Bultmann, H. Conzel-
mann, W. G. Kiimmel listed below in the bibliography.
Among the writers who have defended the authenticity of the passage are O.
Betz, O. Cullmann, J. Jeremias and A. Oepke (see also the bibliography). Cull-
mann gives a history of the interpretation of the saying (Peter: Disciple — Apostle —
Martyr. A Historical and Theological Study, 1962?, 164-76). He himself locates it in
the passion period in a setting similar to Lk. 22:31 ff., but stresses that his inter-
pretation does not stand or fall with his view of the setting (op. cit., 176-91).
Cullmann argues that the comparative infrequency of the word ekklésia is indecisive,
“for it does not designate anything like a Christian creation, but belongs to the
Jewish sphere. ... We must start with the meaning ‘people of God’ when we ask
the question whether or not Jesus can have spoken of the Church” (op. cit., 194 f.;
—> Church, art. ekklésia for the OT concept supporting Cullmann’s claim). More-
over, Jewish messianic expectation is inconceivable without a messianic community
(op. cit., 195; cf. Eth.Enoch 38:1; 53:6; 62:8; 83:8; 84:5; Dan. 7:9-—28). “If he con-
sidered himself to be the Danielic Son of Man (Mark. 14:62 and parallels), he also
knew that according to Daniel 7:18 the Son of Man represents the ‘people of the
saints’ ’’ (op. cit., 196). The new element in the situation is the reconstitution of the
people of God in view of his special messianic deed, the suffering of the servant of
God. As Cullmann observes, the argument is bound up with Jesus’ messianic
consciousness, and it is not surprising that Bultmann who denies this also denies
the authenticity of the passage. A further factor is the fact that Jesus now no longer
views the messianic community as identical with the Jewish nation. The fact that he
speaks of his ekklésia does not contradict the fact that its building is the work of God.
731
OPEN
With regard to the question of whether Jesus could have envisaged a future
church in view of his teaching on the imminence of the kingdom, Cullmann
points out that the alternative of a present or future messianic community presents
a false perspective (op. cit., 199 f.). The Jewish idea of the people of God cannot be
forced into this alternative. It is not a case of the early church developing the
promised kingdom into an institutional church. ‘‘Rather, the fulfilment in the
person of Jesus leads directly to the fulfilment in the Church, and the fulfilment in
the Church points back in turn to the fulfilment in the person of Jesus. Therefore
it is not merely possible that Jesus also sees the people of God already beginning
to be constituted in his day; we would almost have to postulate this even if we had
no clear texts to prove it. A direct contradiction between the future Kingdom of
God and the already realized people of God is only a construction built on the
basis of modern thinking” (op. cit., 201). The choice of the twelve disciples reflect-
ing the twelve tribes of Israel is closely bound up with the reconstitution of the
people of God. The band of disciples anticipates the messianic community which is
constituted by the death of the Christ. But even though the Christ dies the —
gates of death will not prevail against it.
Cullmann sees this concept of the church as the messianic community further
supported by the saying about raising up the temple which also refers to the time
after the death of Jesus (Matt. 26:61; Mk. 14:58; cf. Jn. 2:19) which involves the
messianic community (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5 ff.; op. cit., 204 f.). A future community is also
implied by the — Lord’s Supper, and such passages as Mk. 2:18 ff.; 14:28, 62 imply
that Jesus envisaged a time when his followers would continue after his death (op.
cit., 206 f.).
For discussion of the significance of the name Peter (petros) and the meaning of
the rock (petra) — Rock. The metaphor of building on the rock implies a — house
(comparable with the house of Israel) or a— temple. “In Matthew 16:19 it is
presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the King-
dom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22
the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of the servant Eliakim,
so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and
thereby installs him as administrator of the house” (op. cit., 209 f.; cf. the illustra-
tion of the steward in Mk. 13:34; Lk. 12:42; 16:1 ff.; 1 Cor. 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:10).
Peter is given the task of leading the people of God into the resurrection kingdom.
In this he stands in contrast with the Pharisees who purportedly had the key to the
kingdom but who did not use it to enter and even prevented others from entering
(cf. Matt. 23:13; see 2 above). Whereas they compassed land and sea to make
proselytes (Matt. 23:15), Peter also has a mission to carry out by his preaching to
give men access to the kingdom. His réle in this capacity is described in Acts,
particularly in opening the kingdom to Jewish believers at — Pentecost (Acts 2)
and to Gentile believers at Caesarea (Acts 10).
The words bind (ded) and loose (/yo) represent the Aram. “sar and S¢ra’ (Heb.
’asar and hittir). They have been interpreted as meaning prohibit and permit, 1.e.
establish rules (G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 1909, 214), and put under the ban
and acquit (A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 1963°, 511 f.; J. Schniewind,
Das Evangelium nach Matthdus, NTD 2, 19681, ad loc.). Cullmann favours the
latter interpretation in view of the connection with the forgiveness of sins and
732
OPEN
entry into the kingdom, though he would not exclude the other interpretation
which is equally well attested in rabbinic texts (op. cit., 211; cf. SB I 738). The
power to teach and discipline cannot be sharply separated (— Bind). As the disci-
ples had already shared in the work of Christ in his earthly ministry (cf. Matt.
9:35-10:42; Mk. 6:7-13; Lk. 9:1-6; 10:1-24), so now they are to share in the
highest office of the forgiveness of sins. However, the idea of binding may also
refer back to the picture of the binding of the strong man (i.e. Satan) who must
first be bound (the same vb. ded) before his goods (i.e. those enthralled by him)
may be plundered (Matt. 12:29 par. Mk. 3:27; cf. Lk. 8:21 which does not use
the word). Thus Peter would be promised the power that Christ had to bind the
powers of evil and to liberate men, and this would hold good not only on earth
but also in heaven. Not even death, the power of Hades (—> Gate; — Hell) can
thwart it. In the first instance the reference to Hades may be to the death of Christ,
i.e. not even the impending death will thwart the messianic community, the church
(cf. vv. 21 ff.). Likewise, the power of death will not prevail over the messianic
community itself (cf. vv. 24-27).
The passages may be linked with similar promises in Matt. and Jn. which,
however, are not specifically related to Peter: ““Truly, I say to you, whatever you
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven”’ (Matt. 18:18); “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven;
if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”’ (Jn. 20:23). The passage in Matt.
is set in the context of procedure in the church in dealing with problems of disci-
pline caused by one brother sinning against another. The passage in Jn. constitutes
the climax of the post-resurrection appearances, and is tantamount to Christ’s
commission to the church (cf. v. 21). E. Kasemann (see bibliography) has suggested
that the mention of Peter in Matt. 16 represents the tendency of a Petrine faction,
whereas the omission of his name in the other two passages shows that he did not
enjoy special pre-eminence. It might also be argued that Matt. was simply making
use of the paraenetical material at his disposal. Cullmann, however, sees the
mention of Peter in Matt. 16:17 ff. and his omission from the other passages as
fully compatible with what is known of him elsewhere as spokesman and leader
in his foundational réle in the church but as sharing in the binding and loosing with
the other disciples (op. cit., 211 f.). (+ Rock for discussion of Peter’s rdle in the
early church.)
4.1 Jn. 3:17 uses the vb. metaphorically: ‘“‘But if any one has the world’s goods
and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love
abide in him?” The phrase kleisé ta splanchna appears to be unique; but cf. Ps.
77:9 (76:10): Has God “in his anger shut up his compassion [synexei tous oiktir-
mous autou]?”’
5. Access to the eschatological Kingdom of God is also the concern of those
apocalyptic passages where the key of David is spoken of (Rev. 3:7 f.). The apoca-
lyptic writer interprets Isa. 22:22 messianically of Christ (such an interpretation
is lacking in Judaism): As Eliakim received the key to the house of David, and was
given the authority to decide over admission to the house of David, so Christ, as
the promised descendant of David, holds the perfect key in his hand to decide over
admission and exclusion to the future regal city of God. As the crucified and Risen
One, he has the keys to the world of the dead (Rev. 1:18), so that — death has lost
733
OPEN/OPENNESS
its final terror for the believer. Possessing the keys to the abyss (Rev. 20:1), he is the
Lord who governs the spirits of the underworld (20:3). (On this passage -- Number,
art. chilias.) D. Miiller, C. Brown
— Apostle, — Bind, — Church, — Gate, — Heaven, — Hell, — Kingdom, — Rock
(a). J. B. Bauer, ‘Binding and Loosing’, EBT 1 67; G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation,
New Century Bible, 1974; G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 1960; R. E. Brown, K. P. Donfried
and J. Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament, 1973; F. Btichsel, ded etc., TDNT II 60f.;
H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the First Three Centuries
of the Church, 1969; R. H. Charles, Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, ICC, I-II, 1920;
O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple — Apostle — Martyr. A Historical and Theological Study, 1962?;
G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 1909; D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible,
1972, 258-64; J. Jeremias, kleis, TDNT III 744-53; and thyra, TDNT III 173-80; O. Karrer,
Peter and the Church: An Examination of Cullmann’s Thesis, 1963; E. Kasemann, ‘‘Ministry
and Community in the New Testament’’, Essays on New Testament Themes, SBT 41, 1964,
63-94: “Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament”, and ‘“‘The Beginnings of Christian
Theology’, New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 66-81, and 82-107; K. L. Schmidt, ekklésia,
TDNT Ill 518-26.
(b). R. Baumann, Fels der Welt, 1956; O. Betz, ‘“‘Felsenmann und Felsengemeinde’’, ZNW 48,
1957, 49 ff.; H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, I, 1966, 30 ff.; and Spdatjiidisch-haretischer
und frithchristlicher Radikalismus, \-I1, BHTh 24, 19287; R. Bultmann, ‘“‘Die Frage nach der Ech+
theit von Mt. 16, 17-19”, ThBl 20, 1941, 265 ff. (reprinted in Exegetica, 1967, 255 ff.); G. Dalman,
Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina, VII, 53 ff.; F. Kattenbusch, ‘‘Der Quellort der Kirchenidee’’, Festgabe
fiir Adolf von Harnack, 1921, 160 ff.; and “Der Spruch tiber Petrus und die Kirche bei Mt.”,
ThSt Kr 94, 1922, 96 ff.; W. G. Kimmel, Kirchenbegriff und Geschichtsbewusstsein in der Urge-
meinde und bei Jesus, 1968", 20 ff.; and ‘“‘Jesus und die Anfange der Kirche’’, StTh 7, 1953, 1-27
(reprinted in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 289-309); G. Lambert, ‘“‘Lier — Délier’’, Vivre
et Penser 3, 1943-44, 91-103; H. Lehmann, ‘“‘Du bist Petrus’’, EvTh 13, 1953-54, 44 ff.; O. Linton,
Das Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forschung, 1932, 157 ff.; O. Michel, RAC II 374-80; F.
Obrist, Echtheitsfragen und Deutungen der Primatstelle Mt. 16, 18 f. in der deutschen protestan-
tischen Theologie der letzten 30 Jahre, NTAbh 16, 3/4, 1961; A. Oepke, ‘‘Der Herrenspruch tiber
die Kirche Mt. 16, 17-19 in der neuesten Forschung’’, St7h 2, 1948-50, 110 ff.; SB I 738 ff.; A.
Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 1963°; K. L. Schmidt, ““‘Die Kirche des Urchristentums’”’,
Festgabe fiir A. Deissmann, 1927, 258 ff.; A. Schonherr,‘ “‘Schliisselgewalt”” EKL III 813 ff.; H.
Thyen, ‘‘Schliisselgewalt’’, RGG*® V 1449 ff.; A. Vogtle, ““Messiasbekenntniss und Petrusverheis-
sung’, BZ Neue Folge 1, 1957, 252 ff.; 2, 1958, 85 ff.; and “Jesus und die Kirche’’, in Begegnung
der Kirche, Festschrift fiir O. Karrer, 1959, 54 ff.; ‘““Der Einzelne und die Gemeinschaft in der
Stufenfolge der Christusoffenbarung’’, in Sentire Ecclesiam, Festschrift fiir H. Rahner, 1961, 53 ff.;
H. Windisch, ‘“‘Urchristentum’”’, 7hR 5, 1933, 251 ff.
Openness, Frankness, Boldness
[—mappnoia Ttappyoia (parrhésia), openness, confidence, boldness,
| mappyoia | frankness; zappyoidcoua (parrhésiazomai), speak out,
speak openly, speak boldly.
cL 1. The meaning of parrhésia corresponds to its etymology (pan, all, rhésis,
speech, word, and erd, say, speak, from the root *wer-; cf. Lat. verbum, the Ger.
Wort and the Eng. word): freedom to say all. Since in practice this freedom of
speech encountered opposition from time to time, parrhésia acquired the further
meaning of fearlessness, frankness. A negative overtone is also perceptible in some
instances where freedom of speech has been misused to the point of bluntness and
734
OPENNESS
shamelessness. In an extended sense parrhésia can mean confidence and joyfulness.
The corresponding vb. parrhésiazomai means to speak openly or boldly, and to
have confidence.
2. The word group which is first found in Euripides and Aristophanes belonged
originally to the sphere of politics. It signifies the democratic right of a full citizen
of a Greek city-state (but not that of a — slave or foreigner; — Foreign): in the
public assembly of the people one may speak out freely one’s opinion (cf. Polyb.,
2, 38, 6). This right is the characteristic of a democracy, but there is the danger of
misuse, as Plato shows (Rep. 8, 557b). parrhésia played an important réle in private
affairs, where in the context of teaching on philia (love) it denoted the openness
with which one met a friend (cf. Aristot., Eth.Nic. 9, 2). In the course of history a
more moral concept evolved out of the originally political one which was of central
importance in Cynic philosophy as the correlative to eleutheria, — freedom (H.
Schlier, T7DNT V 874). Here parrhésia is no longer a civil right but the mark of
someone who is morally free and who does not shun public attention.
oT 1. In the LXX the word-group occurs only rarely (the noun 12 times; the vb.
6 times). In contrast with secular Gk. the concept is used both of God and man
who stands over against God. It is used of God in Ps. 94:1 (LXX 93:1) where
eparrhésiasato (lit. “spoke freely’’) translates the Heb. hdpia‘, ‘‘thou God of ven-
geance shine forth’ (RSV; from the Heb. vb. yapa‘, shine forth). (The Heb. word is
used in connection with theophanies [Deut. 33:2; Pss. 50:2; 80:2; Job 10:3, 22;
cf. H. Schlier, TDNT V 877].) In Ps. 94 God is called upon to come forth as the
avenger and requite the ungodly of their wickedness. A link between such a mani-
festation of God (cf. Ps. 11:6 LXX) and divine utterance is given in Prov. 1:20f.,
where “‘Wisdom cries aloud in the street; 1n the markets she raises her voice; on
the top of the walls she cries out; at the entrance of the gates she speaks.” The LXX
renders the second clause en de plateiais parrhésian agei, “‘and in the broad places
of a city she acts with confidence” (1:20).
parrhésia occurs in Job 27:10: “‘Or when trouble comes upon him, has he any
confidence before him [mé echei tina parrhésian enanti autou]?’’ The vb. features in
Job 22:26: ‘“‘Then you shall have confidence before the Lord, and look upon to
heaven with cheerfulness [eita parrhésiasthésé enanti kyriou anablepsas eis ton
ouranon hilaros|’. In Job 27:10 there is no Heb. equivalent noun. In Job 22:26
the Heb. vb. is ‘adnag, to take delight in, which is used to describe the happy rela-
tionship of man with God that the righteous will have even in judgment (Wis. 5:1).
For other uses of ‘adnag see Deut. 28:56; Ps. 34:4, 11; Isa. 55:2; 57:4; 58:14;
66:11.
The remaining instances of parrhésia occur at Lev. 26:13 (for the unique word
gomemiyyut, adv. upright); Est. 8:13; Prov. 10:10; 13:5; Wis. 5:1; Sir. 25:25; 1
Macc. 4:18; 3 Macc. 4:1; 7:12; 4 Macc. 10:5 (all without Heb. equivalent). The
remaining instances of parrhésiazomai occur at Ps. 12(11):5; Prov. 20:9; Cant.
8:10; Sir. 6:11 (all without Heb. equivalent).
2. The Gk. understanding of parrhésia was taken over in the literature of Hellen-
istic Judaism (cf. TDNT V 875-79). But there are traces of OT influence, when, for
instance, a good —> conscience which no godless person ’can have is mentioned as a
prerequisite for parrhésia. The word is used to describe a man’s attitude in prayer
735
OPENNESS
(cf. Philo, Rev. Div.Her. 5-29) and the confidence of the righteous in the end-time
(cf. 2 Esd. 7:98 ff.).
NT parrhésia occurs 31 times in the NT (13 times in the Johannine writings; 8
times in Paul; 5 times in Acts; and 4 times in Heb.; and once in Mk.). The vb.
parrhésiazomai is found 9 times (7 times in Acts; and twice in Paul). The two words
vary in meaning from virtually the equivalent of eleutheria, freedom, to elpis, hope.
1. In Jn. parrhésia is used in the dat. in the unique sense of openly, in public:
‘“‘And here he is, speaking openly, and they say nothing to him!” (Jn. 7:26; cf.
11:54; 18:20; cf. also Mk. 8:32). In each of these passages in Jn. it refers to Jesus’
boldness in teaching in public. It is a rather different sense from that of his brothers
who urged Jesus to do something in public in order to convince them (Jn. 7:4). In
the case of Jesus parrhésia does not mean, “‘as it originally did in Greek, the right
or courage to appear in public, freedom of speech, openness... but as is common
later, it refers to actions performed in public’ (R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John,
1971, 291). By contrast Jn. 7:13 reports that no one spoke of Jesus openly for fear
of the Jews. In Jn. 10:24; 11:14; 16:25, 29 it has the rather different sense of
‘“plainly”’.
When Jesus spoke openly in public, this can also mean that he spoke unam-
biguously and plainly; not only in allusions (Jn. 11:14; cf. 10:24 f.) or in veiled
parables (cf. Jn. 16:29). But Jesus spoke so freely only for believers (Jn. 16:25, 29).
To the world he spoke in —> parables (art. paroimia), which could not be understood
without faith. Hence, there is a tension between parrhésia and paroimia which
corresponds to the Johannine dualism of life and death, truth and the lie etc.
which demands a decision and which can only be resolved in faith.
2. Corresponding to the parrhésia of Jesus, there is the open and authoritative
testimony of the apostles. Again and again Acts reports how fearlessly Peter, Paul
and others stood before the Jews or the Gentiles and proclaimed the works of God.
The noun 1s used in Acts 2:29; 4:13; 29, 31; 28:31; and the vb. in Acts 9:27 f.;
13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8; 26:26. This boldness which provokes astonishment
(4:13), division (14:3 f.) and persecution (9:27) is not something that man has under
his own control. It is the fruit of the Holy Spirit (4:31) that has to be sought again
and again (4:29).
3. This is the view of the parrhésia of the witness taken by Paul and John. It
characterizes effective preaching of the mysteries of God (Eph. 6:19), and the
honouring of Christ in life and death (Phil. 1:20). Since perseverence, perhaps in
prison, is demanded of the disciple (cf. Eph. 6:20), parrhésia has here also the sense
of boldness and courage (1 Thess. 2:2). Such courage is not a human quality; it
comes from God (1 Thess. 2:2) and Christ (Phlm. 8).
We should approach the future not in fear of judgment but in full confidence,
openness to God and in the hope of the fullness of the glory of God (cf. 2 Cor.
3:11 f.). Therefore, we should abide in Christ (1 Jn. 2:28; Heb. 3:6; 10:35), who
has already triumphed over the principalities and powers in public (en parrhésia,
Col. 2:15), and made possible access into the holiest (Heb. 10:18; cf. 4:16). He
who perseveres in faith, holds to Christ in love (cf. 1 Jn. 4:17; cf. also the emphasis
laid on parrhésia gained through faithful service, 1 Tim. 3:13), and who is not
condemned by his own heart (1 Jn. 3:21) will have confidence in prayer (1 Jn.
736
OPENNESS/ORPHAN
5:14). He will also “have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his
coming” (1 Jn. 2:28). Thus parrhésia contains the ideas of “‘trust in God, certainty
of salvation, the conquest of the consciousness of sin, sanction and power to pray,
and expectation of the future’? (O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrder, KEK 13,
1966?2, 98). H.-C. Hahn
(a). Arndt, 635 f.; Liddell-Scott, 1344; M. Radin, ‘‘Freedom of Speech in Ancient Athens’’, The
American Journal of Philosophy 4, 1927, 215-220; H. Schlier, parrhésia, parrhésiazomai, TDNT V
871-86; W. C. van Unnik, “‘The Christian’s Freedom of Speech’, BJRL 44, 1961-62, 466 ff.
(b). E. Busch, J. Fangmeier, M. Geiger, eds., Parrhésia. Karl Barth zum achtzigsten Geburtstag
am 10. Mai 1966, 1966 (It should be noted that this is not a study of the concept as such, but essays
on a wide variety of themes concerning Christian attitudes to contemporary theological and other
questions.); P. Jotion, ““Divers sens de parrhésia dans le Nouveau Testament’’, Recherches de
Science Religieuse 30, 1940, 239 ff.; E. Peterson, ‘““Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von parrhésia’’,
Festschrift fiir R. Seeberg, I, 1929, 283-97; W. C. van Unnik, De semitische Achtergrond yan
parrhésia in het Nieuwe Testament, 1962.
Orphan |
| Ophavoc | opdavdc (orphanos), orphan.
cL Insecular Gk. orphanos is used from Homer onwards as an adj. meaning without
parents, fatherless or more generally, bereaved, bereft of; and as a noun,
orphan. Careful provision was made in ancient Greece for orphan children. A
guardian, usually a near relative, was appointed who was responsible for the
orphan’s maintenance and education. Any assets the child inherited were strictly
protected until he came of age. Orphans were exempted from the regular taxes.
The state undertook the maintenance of the children of soldiers killed in war
(Demosthenes). orphanos is used figuratively of disciples left without a master
(e.g. Plato, Phaedo 116a).
OT In the LXX orphanos translates yatom. In the OT the plight of the orphan,
whether or not his mother has died (cf. Job 24:9), is that he has lost his father.
Without the father “the father’s house’’, the primary unit of family life, ceases to
be and the remaining members of the household become vulnerable individuals
whose existence is both anomalous and tragic. Thus in many texts the reference is
to orphans and widows together (e.g. Deut. 10:18; Ps. 146:9). Because the orphans
are so helpless — all they can do is to “‘wander about and beg”’ (Ps. 109:9, 10) —
there can be nothing more wicked than to exploit or ill-use them (Deut. 27:19;
Job 6:27; 22:9; 24:3, 9; Ps. 1:23; 10:2; Jer. 5:28; Ezek. 22:7). The law codes of
the OT demand that the rights of orphans be upheld and their needs met. Orphans
are to have a share in the special tithe (Deut. 14:28, 29; 26:12—15) and are to be
included in the annual feasts (Deut. 16:11, 14). The sheaves, the olives, and the
grapes which remain after the harvest are to be left for ‘‘the sojourner, the orphan,
and the widow” (Deut. 24:17-22). The repentance and moral renewal called for
by the prophets must include care for orphans (Isa. 1:17; Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Zech.
7:10).
Behind this insistence on provision for orphans lies the conviction that it is
ultimately Yahweh himself who “executes justice for the fatherless’’ (Deut. 10:18;
737
ORPHAN
cf. Exod. 22:22—24; Prov. 23:10-11; Ps. 146:9; Hos. 14:3). Yahweh himself is
“father of the fatherless” (Ps. 68:5; cf. Ps. 10:14).
Concern for orphans is urged upon the group to which the Zadokite Documents
are addressed (CD 6:17; 14:14). One of the non-biblical psalms of the Qumran
community gives praise to the Lord who has not “forsaken the orphan’’ (1QH
5:20). ydtém is here used figuratively to designate the member of the community,
persecuted by the ungodly but under the care of God. The image of the orphan as a
collective symbol of the people of God is used by Philo. ‘““The whole Jewish race is
in the position of an orphan. ... Nevertheless the orphan-like desolate state of his
people is always an object of pity and compassion to the Ruler of the Universe”’
(Spec.Leg. 4, 176-179).
Later Judaism continued to safeguard the rights of orphans, to legislate for their
welfare, and to regard the care of them as meritorious. Until an orphan boy or girl
marries he or she is to be maintained from the charity funds (Ket. 67a, b). Deserving
of special praise and reward is the one who cares for the orphan in his home;
‘“‘Whoever brings up an orphan in his own home, scripture ascribes it to him as
though he had begotten him” (San. 19b; cf. Ket. 50a). A late Midrash can speak
of the care of orphans as one of the “‘gates of the Lord” through which the righteous
enter the future world (Midrash Ps. 118:19).
NT orphanos occurs twice in the NT. (A few MSS at Mk. 12:40 add “‘and orphans”
to “‘the houses of widows’’, but this reading must be taken as secondary.)
1. Jas. 1:27. James enjoins practical concern for those least able to help them-
selves, ““orphans and widows’. He follows the OT in mentioning the two groups
together, more fundamentally in insisting that claims to be religious are futile
unless the one who makes them exercises justice and compassion (cf. especially Jer.
7).
2. Jn. 14:18. “I will not leave you orphaned”’ (or “‘[as] orphans’’). This is the one
instance in the Bible of the figurative use of orphanos. It recalls the use of the term
in secular Gk. to describe the feelings of disciples bereft of their teacher. But the
image draws its force from the OT estimate of the family as primarily “the father’s
house’, a household living a single corporate life whose centre and source is the
father. With the father’s death his house is no more and thus the desolation of the
orphan is the loss of all by which he lives. The relationship of Jesus to his disciples
is presented here as that of a father to his children (cf. Jn. 13:3). His death will
make them ‘‘orphans’’. There can be no more powerful symbol of the measure of
their loss. But they will not be left in this pitiable situation. He will come to them.
The metaphor of orphanos implies that this promise is to be fulfilled at the resur-
rection (rather than at the coming of the Spirit or the Parousia) for ‘‘orphans”’,,
unless intervention is swift, have small hope of survival. Easter ends the disciples’
bereavement. ‘“The very word which describes their sorrow confirms their sonship”’
(B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1881, 206). J. Pridmore
(a). H. Kirschenbaum, “‘Orphan’’, in C. Roth and G. Wigoder, eds., Encyclopaedia Judaica XII
1478 f.; H. Seesemann, orphanos, TDNT V 486 fi.
(b). M. Cohn, “‘Jtidisches Waisenrecht”’, Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 37, 1920,
417-45: M. Griinwald, ‘“‘Jiidische Waisenfiirsorge in alter und neuer Zeit”, Mitteilungen zur
jtidischen Volkskunde 23, 1922, 3-29; F. Windberg, orphanos, Pauly-Wissowa XVIII, 1, 1197-1200.
738
OTHER
Other
2 = GAdocg (allos), other; GAdoc (allos), otherwise; GAA0t ploc
| dAdoc, EtEpoc (allotrios), belonging to another, strange, alien, hostile;
adAdoyvevns (allogenés), foreign; GAAddvAo¢ (allophylos), foreign; Etepoc (heteros),
other; étépwe (heterds), differently; étepdyAw@aaoc (heteroglossos), speaking
another tongue; étepocvyém (heterozyged), be unequally yoked, be mismated.
cL In secular Gk. heteros and allos have essentially the same meaning, other. When
they are used as noun or adj., they introduce a new person, thing or group.
Originally heteros was a dual pron. and presupposed pairs of individuals or groups.
Hence hoi heteroi can mean the other group. It is entirely lacking in modern Gk.
oT In the LXX allos refers to that already mentioned in contrast to others and can
even render a demonstrative pron., e.g. the Heb. ’élleh, that. heteros had a
personal connotation and was used to translate words like ’is, réa‘, ’ah (man,
neighbour, brother). allos is used about 100 times; heteros about 150.
NT This distinction is found relatively seldom in the NT, where it is striking that the
use of heteros (98 times in all) relative to allos (155 times in all) decreases in the
later books. In Jn. (except 16:12), 1 and 2 Cor., Tit., 1 and 2 Pet., 1, 2, 3 Jn. and
Rev., but also in 1 and 2 Thess. and Mk. (except 16:12, see below) heteros is
lacking. Luke (both Gospel and Acts) prefers heteros. The polemic factor is one
of the reasons why allos is found so frequently in 1 and 2 Cor.
1. The following details of usage may be noted.
(a) Both words are used to denote another person, thing or group; e.g. allos
(Matt. 5:39; 12:13; Jn. 5:32); heteros (Lk. 5:7; 23:40). Hence té hetera can mean
the next day (Acts 20:15; 27:3).
(b) The same use is found in the plur. (e.g. Matt. 20:3, 6; Lk. 10:1; Jn. 7:12;
9:16; Acts 2:13).
(c) In enumerations (Matt. 13:5, 7 f.: Lk. 8:6 ff.) and in contrasts (Heb. 11:35 f.)
heteros and allos are often used alternately. In enumerations heteros can become a
definite numeral, e.g. in Lk. 19:16, 18, 20 it has the force of “‘the third’ (RSV
‘‘another’’).
(d) Used as a noun ho heteros has the force of the neighbour that God has put in
my way (1 Cor. 10:24; Rom. 2:1; 13:8; Gal. 6:4).
2. These words become important theologically when they express a more or less
qualitative difference, external or internal (Mk. 12:32; 2 Cor. 1:12; 1 Cor. 3:11).
Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection in another — form (Mk.
16:12), so that they did not recognize him (cf. Lk. 24:16; Jn. 20:15). At the trans-
figuration Jesus’ appearance was similarly changed (Lk. 9:29); in this manifesta-
tion Jesus was revealed as the Son of man. The new can only be compared to the
resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:39 ff. in an argument against the denial of the >
resurrection. Matt. 11:3 implies a question whether the messiah must be of another
kind than Jesus.
The interpretation of Acts 2:4 (‘And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and
began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance’’) raises the
question of whether the gift of tongues at — Pentecost was a form of ecstatic
utterance or whether the disciples on whom the Spirit came were in fact speaking
739
OTHER
other languages which they presumably did not know before. The mistaken pre-
sumption of some of the onlookers that they were “‘filled with new wine” (v. 13)
suggests that this was ecstatic speaking in tongues as in Acts 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor.
12:10, 30; 14:1-4. On the other hand, others among the crowd who were Jews and
proselytes visiting Jerusalem from various parts of the Roman empire asked in
amazement: “‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we
hear, each of us in his own native language? ... we hear them telling in our own
tongues the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:7 f., 11). The story of Pentecost is a
preparation for the apostles’ missionary preaching and pictures the outpouring of
the Spirit in a twofold manner: the speaking in tongues as a sign of the outpouring
of the Spirit as prophesied by Joel 2:25—28 (cf. Acts 2:17—21) showing the last
days spoken of by the prophet had now come; and the proclamation of the word
of God. At Pentecost it was proclaimed to Jews and proselytes in Jerusalem. The
event marks the beginning of the fulfilment of Acts 1:8 (“But you shall receive
power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in
Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth’’), and forms
the transition to Peter’s missionary preaching.
({Ed.] For further discussion of the phenomenon — Pentecost; > Word. It
may well have been that among the hundred and twenty or so followers [Acts 1:15]
there were those who already knew something of the languages mentioned, and for
whom therefore the gift was primarily an enabling to proclaim “the mighty works
of God” [2:13]. The assumption that all the followers of Jesus were Galileans
[2:7] was made by the onlookers. Whilst it may have been true that the core of
Jesus’ following came from Galilee, the followers may have included others like
Simon of Cyrene [Matt. 27:32; Mk. 15:21; Lk. 23:26] and possibly Lucius of
Cyrene [Acts 13:1] who may have been among those who spoke to those who came
from “‘the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene”’ [Acts 2:10]. Similarly Acts 11:20
mentions ‘“‘men of Cyprus and Cyrene’? who preached the Lord Jesus and who
might have belonged to the original band at Jerusalem. There were various syna-
gogues in the city which catered for the needs of those who came from the disper-
sion [cf. Acts 6:9], and the population of Jerusalem evidently included a large
number of Hellenists [Acts 6:1 ff.]. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that
some of these already belonged to the followers of Jesus before Pentecost.)
1 Cor. 14:21 uses the compound heteroglossos, speaking another tongue,
speaking a foreign language. The word is found in Polyb., 23, 13, 2; Strabo, 8, 1,
2; Philo, Conf.Ling. 8; and Aquila’s translation of Ps. 113:1; Isa. 33:19. In dealing
with the question of speaking in tongues, Paul argued: “Brethren, do not be
children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature. In the law
it is written, ‘By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners [en hetero-
glossois kai en cheilesin heteron] I will speak to this people, and even then they will
not listen to me, says the Lord.’ Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for
unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.’ Paul is here
quoting Isa. 28:11 f. perhaps in a version known also to Aquila (Origen, Philocalia
9, 2; cf. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1968, 322). In
the prophecy Yahweh is threatening his people, who have failed to respond to his
word delivered to them in their own language by Isaiah, with the foreign speech of
the Assyrian invader. It is thus a judgment on the people of God to have such a
740
OTHER
thing inflicted onthem. This is underlined by the unintelligibility of the other tongue.
To be thus addressed is a sign that God is treating one as an unbeliever (cf. 1 Cor.
14:22). Such a sign may be compared with the sign of the naked prophet in Isa.
20:3 which signified the impending catastrophe and servitude of the people. In
1 Cor. 14 Paul draws an analogy between the event of Isaiah’s day and the en-
thusiasm for glossolalia in the Corinthian church. To speak in another tongue is
ineffective for building up the church and promoting faith. Indeed, it might even
be regarded as a judgment on the community. Whereas prophecy can edify the
believing congregation, since it is intelligible, speaking in tongues cannot. For only
what is intelligible can edify others; at best only the one who speaks in tongues is
edified in the case of glossolalia (cf. vv. 2-19). An utterance in another tongue can
only serve to harden the unbeliever, because it communicates nothing to him, and
does not show him how to be reconciled with God. The unbeliever may even
conclude that the practitioners of glossolalia are mad; but if he hears prophecy
he may well be convicted (vv. 23 f.).
In 2 Cor. 11:4 and Gal. 1:6 ff. Paul stresses the uniqueness of the salvation
offered by his gospel. Another — gospel would not be the gospel, any more than
another spirit can be the Holy Spirit (cf. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Galatians, 1870,!° 1876, 76; W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Galatians, 1899, 260 ff.). The other gospel referred to in Gal. which is
in fact no gospel is the teaching of the Judaizers which insisted on — circumcision
for Gentile converts, so that they would meet the requirements of the old — cove-
nant. Paul sees that such a demand involves a matter of principle concerning the
ground of salvation. To attempt to fulfil the demands of the law in this way would
be to put forward a righteous act by man as a basis for salvation. The whole theme
of Gal. treats the issues involved which confront men with the choice of the free
grace of God in Christ or salvation by human endeavour. The “gospel” of this
latter alternative is anathema to Paul (Gal. 1:8; — Curse, art. anathema).
In Rom. 7:23 the other — law, i.e. the carnal egoistic urge, as a tool of the law
of sin fights against the good law of God, which the mind agrees with (cf. v. 25).
(On this passage — I Am, art. eg6 eimi NT 2 (c).)
Phil. 3:15 contains the sole NT instance of the adv. heteros, differently, otherwise.
In all probability Paul is arguing against enthusiasts who claimed perfection for
themselves and special revelations. Paul takes up the slogan of perfection and
applies it to Christians. The perfect (teleioi; RSV ‘‘mature”; — Goal, art. telos)
are, in fact, those who know that they are imperfect and are aware of the need to
press on to what lies ahead, forgetting what lies behind (vv. 12 f.). They know that
they have not yet reached their goal and do not yet possess “‘the prize of the upward
call of God in Christ Jesus” (v. 14). They will await transformation (v. 21). The
practical conclusion is given in v. 15; “‘Let those of us who are mature be thus
minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that to you.”
The last point is evidently directed at the claim to special revelations. Paul is
confident that by being realistic and patient, they will grow in insight. (See further
J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 1868, 153.)
3. In addition to heteroglossos there is the compound heterozyged, be unevenly
yoked, and several compounds with allos in the NT. 2 Cor. 6:14 refers to the
practice of yoking together animals of different species, e.g. an ox and a donkey,
741
OTHER
in order to draw burdens. Such practices were forbidden by the law which banned
the use of oxen and asses ploughing together (Deut. 22:10; cf. also the practices
mentioned in Lev. 19:19; Philo, Spec.Leg. 4, 203; Josephus, Ant. 4, 228). In 2 Cor.
6:14 Paul applies the idea to relationship of believers with unbelievers: ““Do not
be unevenly yoked together with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteous-
ness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?’ The argument
goes on to refer specifically to idol worship, and compares the people of God with
the — temple and therefore urges moral purity and separation from the corrupt
practices of paganism. The RSV translation ““Do not be mismated”’ reflects the
injunction of Lev. 19:19 not to let cattle breed with a different kind, where the
LXX uses the corresponding adj.
allotrios means what belongs to another, therefore strange, alien, unsuitable,
hostile (— Foreign, art. allotrios). It normally renders the Heb. nokri, but also
sometimes zar. It is found in Matt. 17:25; Lk. 16:12; Jn. 10:5; Acts 7:6; Rom.
14:4; 15:20; 2 Cor. 10:15 f.; 1 Tim. 5:22; Heb. 9:25; 11:34. Only in the latter
passage does it mean hostile, and it is never used in the sense of alien to God. The
vb. apallotriod, estrange, alienate, occurs only in the prison epistles (Col. 1:21;
Eph. 2:12; 4:18) in the perf. pass. part., where men are said to be alienated from
God. It is the state that they are in prior to reconciliation, and is parallel to being
an — enemy (echthros) of God and a stranger (xenos; — Foreign).
allogenés, foreign, is found only in Jewish and Christian literature. It is used for
zar (e.g.. Exod. 29:33; Num. 16:40 [17:5]; Lev. 22:10) and for various other words.
It is found only in the NT of the grateful — Samaritan (Lk. 17:18). allophylos,
foreign, Gentile, heathen, is found in Isa. 61:5; 2:6; 1 Sam. 13:3; Ps. 108:10 for
various Heb. terms, but in the overwhelming majority of its LXX occurrences it
renders ‘“‘Philistines’’. In Acts 10:28 it denotes the Gentiles from the Jewish stand-
point. The obscure word allotriepiskopos (1 Pet. 4:15) has been variously inter-
preted as a concealer of stolen goods, a spy or informer, one who meddles in things
that do not concern him, a revolutionist (details in Arndt, 39 f.).
— Foreign F. Selter, C. Brown
Arndt, 39 f., 314 f.; H. W. Beyer, heteros, TDNT II 702 ff.; F. Biichsel, allos etc., TDNT I 264-67;
Moulton-Muilligan, 23, 257.
742
Parable, Allegory, Proverb
It has been estimated that roughly one third of the recorded teaching of Jesus
consists of parables and parabolic statements, and that there are some forty of the
former and twenty of the latter (A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables, 1960,
10 ff.; for a list see below, NT 5). In its broadest sense a parable is a form of speéch
used to illustrate and persuade by the help of a picture. In ancient writing, including
the Bible, the use of figurative speech was widespread in giving concrete, pictorial
and challenging expression to religious ideas for which there were no corresponding
abstract concepts. Figurative speech is still part and parcel of every day life. On a
philosophical and theoretical level religious language is interpreted in terms of
abstractions and concepts relative to a contemporary world view. But this is
merely to translate one set of thought forms from one conceptual scheme into
those of another. In so doing care must be taken to avoid losing the original con-
tent of the picture and also the challenge which was an essential feature of the
language. In discussing the character of the parable, scholars distinguish the parable
proper from figurative language in general, metaphors, similes and similitudes,
parabolic stories, illustrative stories, and allegories. These seven categories are all
linked to parabolé. The proverb (paroimia) also has a didactic religious function
and is therefore treated in this article.
| napaporjf | napafodn (parabolé), type, figure, parable; zapafadAw
(paraballd), throw alongside, compare; aiviyya (ainigma),
riddle, indistinct image; aAAnyo péw (allégoreo), speak allegorically.
CL parabolé, from Plato and Isocrates on, is to be derived from paraballo (para,
alongside; balld, throw, bring, place) to place alongside, hold beside, throw to,
compare (Plato, Gorgias 475e; Isocrates, 9, 34). It means: (a) holding beside,
comparison (Plato, Philebus 33b; Isocrates, 12, 227); (b) placing beside, meeting,
conjunction (as a technical term in astronomy); (c) venture; (d) parabola in conic
section (as a technical term in mathematics).
1. In rhetoric the word, on the basis of its first meaning, became the technical
term for a specific form of speech, which is distinguished from others. Classical
rhetoric made us of the following figures of speech: (a) the image (eikdn); (b) the
metaphor (metaphora); (c) the comparison (homoiésis); (d) the parable (paraboleé);
(e) the illustrative story (paradeigma); and (f) the allegory (allégoria).
According to Aristotle, the similitude and the pure parable serve as an intro-
ductory means of proof (Rhet. 2, 20). Through the comparison of the known with
743
PARABLE
the unknown, in which the listener himself has to find the similarity (the tertium
comparationis 1s not in general named, in order to set in motion the listener’s
thought processes of grasping, comparing and considering), the point of the
analogy is reached (cf. also Plato, Leg. 6, 758a; Phaed, 82e; 85e; 87b; Apol.
30e; and the Stoic-Cynic diatribes, e.g. Epict., Dissertationes 1, 24, 19f.; 2, 14,
21 f.; 4, 7, 22 f.). The Homeric parables, on the other hand, often aim merely to
illustrate or have a purely poetic function (189 pure parables occur in the J/iad.;
39 in the Odyssey). What characterizes all these comparisons and pure parables is
the fact that their imagery is drawn mostly from life, the reality which is accessible
to everyone.
2. In rhetoric allegory is clearly distinguished from these forms, although
Quintilian (Oratoria 8, 6, 48) comes near to recommending mixed forms. The
noun allégoria (alla agoreud, say something different) is found in Cicero (Orationes
27, 94), but the vb. not until Philo (De Cherubim 25; Som. 2, 31; Vit.Cont. 28),
Josephus (Ant. Preface 24) and later in Athenaeus (2, 69c). This relatively late
occurrence makes it probable that it originated in Hellenistic times, possibly in the
Stoic-Cynic diatribe. The vb. means: (a) to speak allegorically; (b) to allegorize.
Allegorizing has always played an important réle where sacred writings are con-
cerned. When they became antiquated, a new, contemporary content was injected
into them by means of allegorical explanations and their canonical authority was
preserved. Thus allegorization is ‘“‘a late, almost decadent, literary form. It pre-
supposes a stage of development which has already, essentially, had its day. But,
although it has been left behind, people try to salvage something from it” (C. H.
Peisker, ““Das Alte Testament - Gabe und Aufgabe” in Kleine Predigttypologie,
H, 1965, 17). (On allegory in Hellenistic and early Christian thought see R. P. C.
Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s
Interpretation of Scripture, 1959.)
3. The riddle has nothing to do with literary forms in general or with allegory
in particular, although to an uninitiated listener allegory remains enigmatic. The
ainigma, dark saying, puzzling saying, riddle, is found from Pindar and Aeschylus
(PV 613) on. It is the opposite of haplous logos, a plain, straightforward or simple
word, and is related in origin (as in Eng. and Heb.) with the vb. read (Old Eng.
rede, to take counsel, advise, commend; cf. parained, exhort, recommend, advise;
ained, praise, approve, recommend). The riddle likes to use the literary form of
metaphor, but it is to be understood rather as a wise saying. The riddle was con-
sidered, therefore, as a touchstone of wisdom. The riddle really belongs to oracular
and prophetic speech (— Prophet cL). Thus the sayings of the Sibyl, for example,
could be enigmatic (Sib. 3, 811 f.; cf. Sophocles, or 1525; Euripides, Phoen. 1688,
etc.).
oT In the LXX parabolé is always the equivalent of the noun mdasal or the vb.
mdasSal (paraphora or periphora should be read in Eccl. 2:12). masal means: (a) a
saying containing a comparison or taunt; (b) a wise saying, the instruction by
wisdom; (c) the parabolic form (see NT | (a)-(g)). The vb. correspondingly means to
speak or tell a masal.
The vb. meant originally to be similar, like. Therefore, the noun would originally
have had the meaning of comparison, making like. In its long history, which passed
744
PARABLE
from (1) popular speech to (2) the language of wisdom and later (3) to prophetic
speech, it acquired a very broad semantic field. This was taken over, with its
sharply differentiated contents, by the LXX, the Rabbis and, subsequently, the
NT. It is always used, however, unambiguously as a technical term for one or
other particular types or forms but not as a “‘general concept in which the indi-
vidual genera (i.e. types and forms) are comprehended” (O. Eissfeldt, Der Maschal
im Alten Testament, BZAW 24, 1913, 33).
1. Thus mdasal in popular speech first means a proverb (— paroimia), which may
often contain a comparison (Ezek. 18:2; 1 Sam. 10:12; 24:14). If the saying or
comparison is about a person and makes fun of or disparages him as a bad example,
masal means a taunt (Hab. 2:6; Isa. 14:4).
2. Later masal became a technical term among the wise and means a wise saying,
rich in comparisons (— paroimia OT; cf. Prov. 26:7, 9) and the instruction of the
wise. Prov. and the collections contained in it carry this superscription paroimia,
1:1; paideia, 10:1; 25:1 which RSV translates as “‘proverbs”. Like the oriental.
the wise man in the OT loves the enigmatic, dark saying. Hence, in this context
masal approaches hiddah, riddle, in meaning for which it can even be used as a
synonym (Prov. 1:6).
The LXX translates hidah appropriately and correctly by ainigma, i.e. (a) riddle;
(b) dark saying. The former (1 Ki. 10:1; 2 Chr. 9:1; Ps. 49:4 [48:5, Aquila]) is
part of the cult of wisdom at Solomon’s court and has its place in the Wisdom
Literature (Prov. 1:6; 30: 7-30). The only OT riddle given word for word is in Jdg.
14:12-20 (hidaGh translated in the LXX by probléma), the solution of which is
another riddle (14:18). The key-word is “‘love’’. The dark saying requires explana-
tory interpretation. It occurs in oracular speech (e.g. Balaam, Num. 23:7-18;
24:3, 15, 20-23), and in prophecy. God speaks to men — but not to — Moses — in
dark speech (Num. 12:8), and prophetic speech also is enigmatic (Ezek. 17:2,
Symmachus).
3. In the realm of prophecy (— Prophet) masal has its place. On the one hand,
it occurs as proverb and taunt (see above 1). On the other hand, it enters through
the fact that, although the word is not present, the object it designates is, and most
of the parabolic forms occur (see below NT 1 (a)-(g)). The later we come, the more
the developed forms (see below nT | (d)-(g)) come into the foreground to clarify,
strengthen and lend more urgency to the prophetic message. Allegory, too, aims
at urgency, but goes about it another way, 1.e. through a certain veiling of the
truth it seeks to attract the attention of the listener (cf. Ezek.). Later, allegorical
visions occur (—> Prophet oT; Zech.; Dan. 2; 4; 7; 8; Eth.Enoch 85~90; 2 Esd.
9:26-13:56). The symbolic actions of the prophets, whose meaning is called masal,
stand in close relationship to the prophetic parables (— Prophet oT). In Rab.
writings masal and matla@ (parable, riddle, comparison) include the whole breadth
of meaning which had grown up in the course of time. Although pure parables pre-
dominate (“Let me tell you a parable: with what is the thing to be compared ”?’’),
the later one comes, the more allegories are found (cf. F. Hauck, TDNT V 750 f.).
In Hellenistic Judaism they become an affectation. Against the background of
many Rab. parables, those of Jesus display “‘a definite personal character, a unique
clarity and simplicity, a matchless mastery of construction” (J. Jeremias, The
Parables of Jesus, 1963", 12).
745
PARABLE
v=
In striking contrast with this, mdasal is to be found nowhere in the Qumran
literature (the vb. only as a different root, to rule), although in the hymns (1QH)
many more or less developed series of metaphors and similes occur.
NT In the NT parabolé occurs only in the Synoptic Gospels (48 times) and in Heb.
(twice); ainigma only in 1 Cor. 13:12 (indistinct, enigmatic image); and allé-
goreo only in Gal. 4:24 (to speak allegorically). The noun allégoria does not occur
in the NT. parabolé in the NT has the following meanings.
1. In Heb. the ritual of the tabernacle is seen as a parabolé (RSV ‘‘symbolic’’)
of the time of salvation (9:9), and the restoration of Isaac as a picture of the
resurrection (“hence, figuratively speaking [kai en parabolé] he did receive him
back’’, 11:19). In Matt. 15:15 par. Mk. 7:17 it means a saying, and in Lk. 4:23 a
proverb. In all other occurrences in the NT it has the meaning of parable in one
or other of its various senses:
(a) In figurative sayings image and reality are placed together without a com-
parative adv. (as), in order that the image (the known) may elucidate the reality
(the unknown), e.g. ‘““You are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14; cf. 25:14; Mk.
2:17, 19; and in the OT Amos 3:8; 6:12; Isa. 40:7; Jer. 12:5; Prov. 6:27—29). In
such figurative sayings it often happened that the image was separated from the
reality it referred to (though from time to time the latter was often expressed in
the context), and was handed on in isolation. In isolation it became detached
from its original context, and thus its original point became lost from view. Thus
Mk. 9:49 (“‘For every one will be salted with fire’’) does not become more intellig-
ible with the secondary addition in the TR (“and every sacrifice will be salted with
salt” RSV mg.). The words appear to have been added at an early stage by a scribe
who detected a clue to its meaning in Lev. 2:13 (cf. Ezek. 43:24; Exod. 30:5), and
other variants were variants of this (cf. Metzger, 102 f.; C. E. B. Cranfield, The
Gospel according to Saint Mark, 1959, 314 ff.). (On this passage — Fire, art. pyr;
—> Salt.) Similarly Matt. 7:6; 24:28 par. Lk. 17:37 do not indicate the original
point of comparison. (On these sayings —-> Animal; — Bird.) In such instances the
saying takes on the character of a metaphor (see below).
(b) The metaphor is a figurative expression in which a name or descriptive term
is applied to some object to which it is not literally and properly applicable. It
often involves the transference of the concrete to the abstract: e.g. ““He is the head
of the family’, or “‘the spring of life” (cf. further Matt. 7:13 f.; 9:37 f.; 15:13;
1 Cor. 9:9; cf. Isa. 5:1-7, which pictures Israel as a bride and a vineyard, with
Matt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1—-12; and Lk. 20:9-19).
Metaphor places the image not beside the reality, as in the figurative saying,
but instead of the reality. One has to know beforehand what reality lies behind the
metaphor, or it remains unintelligible. Thus all metaphorical speech rests on
convention.
(c) The simile is a sentence in which reality and image are placed beside one
another by means of a comparative adv. In this case there is only one principal
point of comparison: e.g. ““‘Her hair [the reality] is as fair as straw [the image]”’
(cf. further Matt. 10:16; Lk. 11:44; cf. Prov. 11:22; 25:11-13; 26:1 ff.; Isa. 16:2;
Hos. 2:1—-5; 6:9; Ps. 127:4).
746
PARABLE
Similes occur only rarely. For the most part it will have already passed over into
a figurative saying and then become metaphorically coloured in the tradition. The
image in a simile is taken from the reality which is accessible to everyone.
(d) The pure parable is a story which has developed out of a simile or a figurative
saying. Two things, events or situations (image and reality), which are similar,
are compared, so that the known may elucidate the unknown. The image depicts
a typical event or circumstance. It “is taken from the reality which is accessible to
everyone, and points to things which happen every day, to situations, the existence
of which the least willing must acknowledge” (A. Jiilicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu,
I, 18992, 93). There is only one principal point of comparison. For example: ‘“The
kingdom of heaven is like leaven...” (Matt. 13:33; cf. Lk. 13:20; — Leaven; cf.
Matt. 13:31 f.; Lk. 14:28-33; 15:4-10; 17:7-10; Isa. 28:23-25; Jer. 18:1-6).
“The parable anticipates all opposition, in that it speaks only of what is un-
doubted ... [It] operates with ‘no one’, ‘none,’ ‘everyone’, ‘whenever’, ‘as often
as’, etc., and seeks to overwhelm the hearer by the weight of its ‘at all’’’ (A.
Jiilicher, op. cit., I, 97).
(e) The parabolic story differs from the pure parable only in that its picture, which
is a fictional story, is recounted as if it had once happened. “It places before
us not what everyone does, what cannot be otherwise, but what someone once did,
without asking whether others would act in the same way” (A. Jiilicher, op. cit., I,
93). Thus, the parabolic story of the unjust judge begins: “In a certain city there
was a judge...” (Lk. 18:2 ff.; cf. Lk. 11:5-8; 14:16-24; 2 Sam. 12:1-4. “‘The
parabolic story replaces by its vividness the advantage that the parable has through
the authority of the generally known and acknowledged. Indeed, the parabolic
story stands higher, being more subtle and revealing is point less. . . . The parabolic
story .. . requests, ‘Hearer, let me tell you just one story, if it does not convince you,
I will be quiet’ ”’ (A. Jilicher, op. cit., [L, 97 f.).
(f) The illustrative story is a freely invented story which gives an example, a
model case, which has to be generalized by the hearer. Thus the story of the good —
Samaritan ends with Jesus saying: “‘Go and do likewise!” (Lk. 10:37). Conversely,
the illustrative story of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the temple ends with a
warning about those who are like the Pharisee (Lk. 18:10-14; cf. Lk. 10:30~37;
12:16-21; 16:19-31; 2 Sam. 14:5-7). It is noteworthy that the NT illustrative
stories only occur in Lk.
(g) Allegory is a freely invented story, which says something other than it appears
to say on the surface by heaping metaphor on metaphor. It is a continuous meta-
phor, e.g. ‘“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a marriage
feast for his son...” (Matt. 22:2-10; cf. Jn. 10:15; Rom. 11:17—24; 1 Cor. 3:10-13;
Ezek. 16; 17; 19; 23; 31; 34; Ps. 80:8-19).
‘Allegory seeks to present truth to our minds in a more expressive form by
painting it in a series of pictures, which indicate but at the same time conceal the
intended truth” (H. Weinel, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 1929°, 2). Like metaphor, allegory
rests on convention. It is only intelligible when the metaphors are known, for they
have to be translated step by step, and when the matter that they depict is known.
It is a literary form intelligible only to the initiated, the function of which is not to
make facts known but to appraise known facts. Ezek. 17:12—21 offers a model
exposition. Allegories of this kind occur in the NT but they are designated as
747
PARABLE
parabolé and not as allégoria (Matt. 22:1). (For further discussion of allegory and
its possible use in the NT see 9 below.)
2. In section 1 an attempt was made to distinguish various forms. But it must
be remembered that parables spring from living speech, and therefore most often
appear in mixed forms. At the same time the following further laws or rules may
be noted.
(a) The parable as drama. In pure parable and the related forms a distinction
may be drawn between the image and the reality. Understanding comes at the point
where the two halves intersect, the point of comparison. In the developed forms the
picture part of the parable is not static but presents a drama to the hearer which
can be divided into scenes. In view of this one may speak of the dramatic half of
the parable (cf. G. Eichholz, Einftihrung in die Gleichnisse, BSt 37, 1963).
(b) The law of conciseness requires that the dramatic half be told concisely and
simply. Irrelevant emotions and motives are not disclosed. There never appear
more than three characters or groups of characters (the law of three), and there
are never more than two actors in one scene (the law of two on the stage). If the
conclusion is unimportant or self-evident, it may be omitted.
(c) The law of unity of action demands that only one plot should be developed
in the drama, never two or more on parallel lines. To this end the drama is re-
counted from only one point of view. ([Ed.] This point was stressed by Jiilicher
and those who followed him, but many scholars feel that this rule can no longer be
adhered to pedantically.)
(d) For the expositor the law that the stress comes at the end is important.
_ (e) The law of listener-relatedness states that the material for the drama is taken
from the world of the hearer and reflects his experiences and thoughts. The parables
are also spoken directly to the hearer. Thus the question-parables are one single,
big question, which compels the listener to reply. To this end he is drawn into the
parable, in so far as he finds himself portrayed in the main character and thereby
not only moved but caught (cf. H. Greeven, ““Wer unter euch... ?”, Wort und
Dienst, Neue Folge 3, 1952, 86-101; G. V. Jones, The Art and Truth of the Parables:
A Study in their Literary Form and Modern Interpretation, 1964; and A. C. Thisel-
ton, ““The Parables as Language-Event: Some Comments on Fuchs’s Hermeneutics
in the Light of Linguistic Philosophy”, S/T 23, 1970, 437-68).
3. Besides the formal laws there is the question of the effects of tradition. In
The Parables of Jesus, 19637, J. Jeremias discusses in detail the transmission of the
parables. He considers that many of them acquired new addressees in the course of
being handed on, and that sometimes parables directed to outsiders came to be
seen as applicable to disciples (op. cit., 96-114). In the case of the parable of the
sower (Matt. 13:1-9 par. Mk. 4:1-9, Lk. 8:48) there is considerable debate
whether the explanation (Matt. 13:18-23 par. Mk. 4:13—20, Lk. 8:11-15) was a
later addition by the early church. J. Jeremias argues for this (op. cit., 77 ff.), but
against this see C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, 1962, 149 ff. (On
this parable see also D. Wenham, “‘The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New
Suggestions about the Composition of Mark 4:1-34”, TB 23, 1972, 3-38.) Jeremias
argues that the tendency to allegorization is due to the influence of tradition (op.
cit., 66-89), and G. Eichholz argues that the evangelists’ freedom in handling the
tradition “is paradoxically to be understood as an attempt at obedience; it springs
748
PARABLE
from the very fact that they are bound to the word handed down”’ (op. cit., 40).
On the other hand, I. H. Marshall observes that “‘the admission of freedom in
handling the sayings of Jesus does not of itself permit us to postulate that the early
Church felt free to attribute later sayings to Jesus Himself. There is clearly a
difference between handing down sayings with alterations and enlarging the corpus
with new sayings” (Eschatology and the Parables, 1963, 14). Jeremias himself
maintains that “in dealing with the parables we are dealing with a particularly
trustworthy tradition, and are brought into immediate relation with Jesus” (op.
cit., 12).
4. The message of the parables cannot be reduced to a single theme; each one
must be examined individually. In general one can say that the parables are “‘shot
through with the same Christological significance as the miracle narratives” (E.
Hoskyns and F. N. Davey, The Riddle of the New Testament, 1947°, 134). They are
primarily eschatological (cf. C. H. Dodd, op. cit.; I. H. Marshall, op. cit.) and
contain two groups of themes, the > kingdom of God and repentance (— Con-
version). (On the question of eschatology — Kingdom; — Present; — Time.)
The parables of growth belong to the first group (Matt. 13; Mk. 4; Lk. 8; 13:18-21)
as do the parables which speak of God and his activity (Matt. 20:1-16; 25:14-30;
Lk. 15:11-32). The second group enjoins the urgency of repentance (Lk. 12:16-20;
13:6—9) which demands decisive (Lk. 16:1—8), radical (Matt. 13:44—46) and watch-
ful action (Matt. 24:42-25:13), because the kingdom is near. The parables which
speak of action towards one’s neighbour (—~ Brother; — Samaritan) also belong
to this group (Matt. 18:23-35; Lk. 10:30-37). Much light on the meaning of
particular parables has been shed by J. D. M. Derrett in his studies of their teaching
against the background of rabbinic law Law and the New Testament, 1971. For
further discussion of individual parables see the articles relative to key words in
them and the literature noted in the bibliographies below. C. H. Peisker
5. The following is a table of parables and parabolic sayings, set out according
to the general context given in the Gospels. It should be borne in mind that there is
a measure of scholarly disagreement as to what properly constitutes a parable or
parabolic saying. It should also be noted that some parables and sayings are set in
different contexts by different Gospels, and that there are variations and similar
themes. This should be taken into account in any detailed study.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matt.)
The salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13; Mk. 9:49 f.; Lk. 14:34 f.)
The light of the world (Matt. 5:14 ff.; Mk. 4:21; Lk. 8:16; cf. 11:33; Jn. 8:12)
On treasures (Matt. 6:19 ff.; Lk. 12:33 f.; cf. 16:9)
The sound eye (Matt. 6:22 f.; Lk. 11:34 ff.)
The birds of the air and the lilies of the field (Matt. 6:26 ff.; Lk. 12:24~28)
On serving two masters (Matt. 6:24; Lk. 16:13)
The speck in the eye (Matt. 7:3, 5; Lk. 6:41 f.)
On profaning the holy (Matt. 7:6)
The two ways (Matt. 7:13 f.; Lk. 13:23 f.)
The wolves in sheep’s clothing and “‘By their fruits .. .”’ (Matt. 7:15—20; cf. 3:10;
12:33 ff.; Lk. 6:43 ff.; 3:9)
The house built on the rock (Matt. 7:24-27; Lk. 6:47 ff.)
749
PARABLE
Galilaean Ministry
The harvest is great (Matt. 9:35~38; cf. 4:23; 14:14; Mk. 6:6, 34; Lk. 8:1; 10:2;
Jn. 4:35)
The two debtors (Lk. 7:41 ff.)
The sign of Jonah (Matt. 12:38-42; 16:1-4; Mk. 8:11 f.; Lk. 11:16, 19-32; Jn.
6:30)
The parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1-9; Mk. 4:1-9; Lk. 8:4-8; cf. 5:1-3)
The reason for speaking in parables (Matt. 13:10—-17; Mk. 4:10 ff., 25; Lk. 8:9 f.,
18; Jn. 9:39)
The interpretation of the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:18-23; Mk. 4:13—20;
Lk. 8:11-15)
He who has ears to hear, let him hear (Matt. 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mk. 4:9, 23; Lk. 8:8;
14:35)
The seed growing secretly (Mk. 4:26—29)
The wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30)
The mustard seed (Matt. 13:31 f.; Mk. 4:30 ff.; Lk. 13:18 f.)
The leaven (Matt. 13:33; Lk. 13:20 f.)
Jesus’ use of parables (Matt. 13:34 f.; Mk. 4:33 f.)
The interpretation of the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:36—-43)
The hidden treasure and the pearl of great price (Matt. 13:44 ff.)
The fish net (Matt. 13:47—S0)
Treasures old and new (Matt. 13:51 f.)
Jesus’ true kindred (Matt. 12: 46-50; cf. 7:21; Mk. 3:20 f., 31-35; Lk. 8:19 ff.;
Jn. 15:14)
The unforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23—35)
On the Way to Jerusalem (Lk.)
The Good Samaritan (Lk. 10: 29-37)
The friend at midnight (Lk. 11: 5-8)
Light (Lk. 11:33; cf. 8:16; Matt. 5:15; Mk. 4:21)
The sound eye (Lk. 11:34 ff.; Matt. 6:22 f.)
The rich fool (Lk. 12:16—21)
On treasures (Lk. 12:33 f.; cf. above under The Sermon on the Mount)
The barren fig tree (Lk. 13:1-9; cf. Matt. 21:18 f.; Mk. 11:12 ff.)
The mustard seed (Lk. 13:18 f.; Matt. 13:31 f.; Mk. 4:30 ff.)
The leaven (Lk. 13:20 f.; Matt. 13:33)
The great supper (Lk. 14:15-24; Matt. 22:1-14)
Counting the cost of building a tower and going to war (Lk. 14:28—33)
Salt (Lk. 14:34 f.; Matt. 5:13; Mk. 9:49 f.)
The lost sheep (Lk. 15:1-7)
The lost coin (Lk. 15:8 ff.)
The lost (prodigal) son (Lk. 15:11-32)
The unjust steward (Lk. 16:1-9)
On serving two masters (Lk. 16:13; Matt. 6:24)
The rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31)
On being unprofitable servants (Lk. 17:7—10)
The unjust judge (Lk. 18:1-8)
The Pharisee and the publican (Lk. 18:9-14)
Ministry in Judea
On riches (Matt. 19:23-30; Mk. 10:23-31; Lk. 18:24~-30)
750
PARABLE
The labourers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1—16)
The pounds (Lk. 19:11—27; cf. Matt. 25:14-40; Mk. 13:34)
Final Ministry in Jerusalem
The two sons (Matt. 21 : 28-32)
The wicked husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19)
The great supper (Matt. 22:1—14)
The widow’s mite (Mk. 12:41-44; Lk. 21:1-4)
The fig tree (Matt. 24:32-36; Mk. 13:28-32; Lk. 21:29-33)
The exhortation to watch (Mk. 13:33-37; cf. Matt. 25:13 ff.; Lk. 19:19 f.;
21:34 ff.)
The flood, watching and the thief in the night (Matt. 24:37-44; Lk. 17:26-36;
12:39 f.; cf. Mk. 13:35)
The good and wicked servants (Matt. 24:45—-51; cf. 25:21; Lk. 12:41-46; cf.
19:17)
The ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13; cf. Mk. 13:33-37; Lk. 12:35-38; 13:25—28)
The talents (Matt. 25:14-30; cf. Mk. 13:34; Lk. 19:11-27)
The sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46)
The Discourses in Jn.
The teaching of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is contained in discourses and dia-
logues which nevertheless use parabolic imagery.
The new birth (Jn. 3:1-36)
The water of life (In. 4:1—42)
The son (Jn. 5:19-47)
The bread of life (Jn. 6:22-66)
The life-giving Spirit (Jn. 7:1-52)
The light of the world (Jn. 8:12—-59)
The good shepherd (Jn. 10:1—42)
The farewell discourses (Jn. 13:1-17:26), including the sayings about the
father’s house (14:2 ff.), the way (14:6), the vine (15:1-16), and the pains of
childbirth (16:2 ff.)
(C. H. Dodd has noted various parabolic forms in Jn. which he believes go back
to an early tradition and which preserve valuable elements which the Synoptic
evangelists omitted: the grain of wheat [12:24]; the pains of childbirth [16:21];
the benighted traveller [11:9 f.]; the slave and the son [8:35]; the shepherd, the
thief and the doorkeeper [10:1—5]; the bridegroom and the bridegroom’s friend
[3:29] Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 1963, 366—87].)
6. A number of parables are contained in the Gospel of Thomas, a 4th-century
Coptic MS found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt around 1945. The work is not a
Gospel in the canonical sense, but a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.
In its present form the work appears to date from the 4th century, containing
a translation of a 2nd century Gk. MS. Some of the parables are substantially
the same as those contained in the canonical Gospels: the sower (No. 8), the
mustard seed (No. 20), the speck in the eye (No. 27), the rich fool (No. 64), the
vineyard (No. 66), and the great supper (No. 65). There is a parable of a fish
net which seems to make a point similar to the parables of the hidden treasure
and the pearl of great price. “‘And he said: Man is like a wise fisherman, who cast
his net in the sea and drew it out of the sea when it was full of little fishes. Among
751
PARABLE
them the wise fisherman found a large good fish. He cast all the little fishes into the
sea. He selected the large fish without difficulty. He who has ears to hear, let him
hear” (No. 7; quoted from the translation by W. R. Schoedel in R. M. Grant and
D. N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, 1960, 120 f.).
Some of the sayings appear to have a gnostic thrust, e.g. the latter part of No.
25: “He who has ears, let him hear! There is a light within a light-man and it
illuminates the whole world; if it does not illuminate it, [it is] darkness’’ (op. cit.,
138). The gnostic is the one who has the illumination. Similarly, the parable of the
lost sheep is changed to make the sheep (i.e. the gnostic who is more important than
the rest) the motive: “‘Jesus said: The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred
sheep. One of them, the largest, lost his way. He left the ninety-nine and sought the
one until he found it. After he had toiled, he said to the sheep, I love you more than
the ninety-nine” (No. 104, op. cit., 181).
Some of the sayings are not found in the canonical Gospels but are found in the
early fathers. “‘Jesus said: He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is far
from me is far from the kingdom” (No. 82, op. cit., 170; cf. Origen, MPG 13, 531
D-32A; Didymus of Alexandria, MPG 39, 1488D). But other sayings are hitherto
unknown. “‘Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a woman who carries a
vessel full of meal and goes a long way. The handle of the vessel broke; the meal
flowed out behind her on the way. She did not notice it, she did not know how to
work. When she reached the house, she set the vessel down and found it empty’”’
(No. 94, op. cit. 176). Here the point seems to be the error of imagining that one
has saving knowledge, when one has lost it. “‘Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father
is like a man who wanted to kill a great man. He drew the sword in his house and
ran it through the wall, in order to know whether his hand was strong enough.
Then he killed the great man” (No. 95, op. cit., 177). This parable which appears to
reflect Zealot aspirations may be compared with the canonical parables which urge
the need to count the cost (cf. Lk. 14:28-32).
For further discussion of Gos.Thom. see F. F. Bruce, ZPEB IV 595f.; and
Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, 1974, 82-158; B. Gartner,
The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, 1961; E. Haenchen, Die Botschaft des
Thomas-Evangliums, 1965; A. J. B. Higgins, ‘““Non-Gnostic Sayings in the Gospel
of Thomas’, NovT 4, 1960, 292-306; H. W. Montefiore, ““A Comparison of the
Parables of the Gospel according to Thomas and the Synoptic Evangelists’, NTS
7, 1960-61, 220-48 (reprinted in H. W. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas
and the Evangelists, 1962); H.-G. Puech, in Henn. Schn., I, 278-307; R. McL.
Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 1960; and ““‘Thomas, Gospel of”, ZPEB
V 735 £.
7. It is sometimes suggested that Jesus intended his parables to be clearly under-
stood by all, but that Mk.’s conception of the messianic secret led Mk. to present
them as deliberately concealing the truth from outsiders and the uninitiated. Thus
Mk. 4:10 ff. declares: ‘““And when he was alone, those who were about him with
the twelve asked him concerning the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has
been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in
parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but
not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.’ ’’ The same thought is
substantially repeated in the parallel passages in Matt. 13:10—15 which quotes from
152
PARABLE
Isaiah’s commission (Isa. 6:9 f.) and Lk. 8:9 f. There is a similar explanation of
the unbelief of the Jews in Jn. 12:40 (quoting Isa. 6:10), and Isa. is also quoted in
Acts 28:26 f. Whereas Matt. quotes the LXX, Mk. agrees with the Targum of Isa.
and the Peshitta. Similarly Mk. concludes his account of the growth parables with
the words: “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were
able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his
own disciples he explained everything” (Mk. 4:33 f.; cf. Matt. 13:34 f. which
cites Ps. 78:2 seeing in Jesus’ teaching fulfilment of the saying: ‘“‘I will open my
mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the
world’’).
The idea that Mk. invented the messianic secret was argued by W. Wrede in
Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1901 (ET The Messianic Secret, 1971),
and has exerted considerable influence on German scholarship. It has, however,
been contested on the grounds that the theme of secrecy and the avoidance of
publicity was intrinsic to the whole mission of Jesus (cf. J. D. G. Dunn, “The
Messianic Secret in Mark’, TB 21, 1970, 92-117; — Secret). Moreover, Jesus’
teaching never handed out truth as it were on a plate. For the truth about God and
man cannot be learnt directly as if it were a series of mere facts which involved no
personal commitment. The parables are language-events which challenge a personal
response. They constitute disclosure situations in which the listener becomes aware
of his relationship with God through identifying himself with the people in the
parable. In this sense the parabolic method is integral to Jesus’ entire mission.
Jeremias agrees with T. W. Manson in seeing that the use in Mk. 4:12 of the
Targum of Isa. 6:10 which was commonly used in the synagogue “‘creates a strong
presumption in favour of its authenticity” (op. cit., 15; cf. T. W. Manson, The
Teaching of Jesus, 1935", 77). He further holds that the word parable in this context
means a riddle (op. cit., 16), and thus Mk. 4:11b must be translated: ‘‘ ‘But to
those who are without all things are imparted in riddles,’ ie. they remain obscure
for them” (op. cit., 16 f.). The conjunction hina (so that) reflects not only the pur-
pose of Jesus but that of God, “in fact it almost amounts to an abbreviation of
hina plerothé, and is therefore to be translated ‘in order that’; ‘in the case of divine
decisions purpose and fulfilment are identical’ ” (op. cit., 17; cf. Arndt, 378). The
conjunction mépote (lest) is taken by Jeremias to mean “‘unless’’, reflecting the
Targum and contemporary rabbinic exegesis. The statement thus would mean:
“To you has God given the secret of the Kingdom of God; but to those who are
without everything is obscure, in order that they (as it is written) may ‘see and yet
not see, may hear and yet not understand, unless they turn and God will forgive
them’ ”’ (ibid.). In view of this general statement about the way God works,
Jeremias maintains that the logion is not concerned with the parables of Jesus but
with his preaching in general. (For further discussion see C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit.,
152-58; and G. V. Jones, op. cit., 225-30, who gives a review of interpretations of
this passage.)
8. Apart from the use of the word parabolé and the numerous instances of verbal
parables in the Gospels, one may also speak of the parabolic actions of Jesus. Just
as OT prophets sometimes performed symbolic acts which were in themselves a
message from Yahweh to those with eyes to see it, so Jesus’ actions may be con-
strued as unspoken parables. Instances of such actions by the OT prophets include
753
PARABLE
Hosea’s marriage with the harlot Gomer (Hos. 1:2 ff.), Isaiah’s nakedness (Isa.
20:2 ff.), Jeremiah’s hiding of the waistcloth by the Euphrates (Jer. 13:1-11), his
breaking of the earthen flask (Jer. 19), and purchase of a field (Jer. 32:7 ff.).
Likewise, false prophets could perform symbolic acts, like the iron horns made by
Zedekiah to persuade Jehoshaphat to fight at Ramoth-gilead (1 Ki. 22:11; 2 Chr.
18:10). In performing parabolic acts Jesus stood in the tradition of the OT pro-
phets. But the acts which he performed ‘‘show that Jesus not only proclaimed the
message of the parables, but that he lived it and embodied it in his own person.
‘Jesus not only utters the message of the Kingdom of God, he himself is the mess-
age’’”’ (J. Jeremias, op. cit., 229, quoting C. Maurer, Judaica, 4, 1948, 147).
Jesus’ parabolic actions include his reception of outcasts (Lk. 15:1 f.; 19:5 f.)
which corresponds to the parable of the great supper. He included them in his
circle of disciples as the new Israel of God (Matt. 9:9 par. Mk. 2:14, Lk. 5:27).
The Last Supper was itself a symbolic act (— Lord’s Supper), as were the healings
(— Heal; — Blind), the rejection of — fasting (Matt. 9:14-17 par. Mk. 2:18—22;
Lk. 5:33-39), and the plucking of grain on the — sabbath (Matt. 12:1-8 par. Mk.
2:23-28; Lk. 6:1—5). The new age and the new Israel were signified by the bestowal
of a —» new — name on Peter, linking the — rock with the building of the escha-
tological —-> temple. The — number of the twelve disciples, recalling that of the
twelve tribes of Israel, also signifies the new Israel, while the seventy disciples
recalls the seventy elders of Israel (Lk. 10:1-12; cf. Exod. 24:1; Num. 11:16; and
perhaps Exod. 15:27). Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:1-9 par. Mk. 11:1-
10, Lk. 19:28—40) and the cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12 f. par. Mk. 11:15ff.,
Lk. 19:45 f.; cf. Jn. 2:13-17) belong together, signifying Jesus’ claims to lordship
over Jerusalem, the temple and Israel. His mode of entry symbolized both kingship
and humility (cf. Zech. 9:9; >» Animal). His washing of the disciples’ feet (Jn.
13:1 ff.) enacts the loving humility of the one who alone can make clean. Perhaps
the weeping over Jerusalem has also a prophetic dimension (Matt. 23:37 ff.
par. Lk. 13:34 f.). Jeremias sees a link between Jesus’ action in writing in the sand
in the pericope on the woman taken in adultery (Jn. 7:53 ff.) and Jer. 17:13 (op.
cit., 228). The cursing of the fig tree (Matt. 21:18 f. par. Mk. 11:12 ff.; — Fruit,
art. syké) is a parabolic act of judgment on a nation which has failed to bear
fruit.
9. The concept of allegory discussed above in 1 (g) differs somewhat from the
allegorical method of interpreting Scripture, as it is often understood. According to
the latter, Scripture should be interpreted to find hidden, spiritual meanings which
are often quite different from the apparently intended or historical ones. This
technique is found in pre-Christian literature, and was practised by Philo (c. 20
B.C. — c. A.D. 50) to interpret the Jewish law in terms of the Hellenistic philosophy
of his day. It was taken over by the Christian Platonist theologians of Alexandria,
Clement and Origen. The latter sought to follow a threefold method of interpre-
tation, seeing in most passages a literal, moral and a spiritual meaning. Thus the
story of the blind men at Jericho is not only literally true. According to the moral
meaning, our eyes must be likewise opened by the Word of God and we must come
out of our Jericho. According to the spiritual meaning, the two beggars represent
Israel and Judah, whilst Jericho is the world (Matt. 20:29-34; cf. Origen, De
prin. 4, 2. 45; Commentary on Matthew 16:9-11; 16:23; cf. R. P. C. Hanson, op.
754
PARABLE
cit., 235 f.). Similarly, Augustine saw a hidden significance in every aspect of the
parable of the Good Samaritan: the man was Adam; Jerusalem, the heavenly city
from whose blessedness Adam fell; Jericho, man’s mortality; the thieves, the
devil and his angels; the stripping of the clothes, man’s former immortality; the
priest and Levite, the priesthood and ministry of the OT which are ineffective to
bring salvation; the Samaritan, the Lord Jesus Christ; the oil, the comfort of good
hope; the wine, the exhortation to work with a fervent spirit; the beast, the flesh;
the inn, the church; the morrow, the period after the resurrection; the innkeeper,
the apostle Paul; the supererogatory payment, either the council of celibacy or
Paul’s desire not to burden the church with the cost of his upkeep (Quaestiones
Evangeliorum, 2, 19; cf. C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 1936°, 11 f.).
In these instances of allegorical interpretation it is clear that these spiritual
meanings are read into a story in a way alien to the original intention of the story.
It is also apparent that allegory in this sense is used in a sense different from that
in | (g) above, where the original story is itself a continuous metaphor which
already includes in itself the intention of having more than one point. The question
arises, however, whether allegory in the sense of Origen and Augustine occurs in
the NT. In 1 Cor. 9:9 Paul appeals to Deut. 25:4 in support of his contention that
apostles have the right to be kept by the church: “‘For it is written in the law of
Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen
that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written
for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher should
thresh in hope of a share in the flock” (cf. also 1 Tim. 5:18). It would seem that in
his handling of the OT Paul follows a method of interpretation exemplified at
Qumran of “quotation exposition, a midrash pesher which drew from the text the
meaning originally planted there by the Holy Spirit and expressed that meaning in
the most appropriate words and phrases known to him” (E. E. Ellis, ““A Note on
Pauline Hermeneutics’, NTS 2, 1955-56, 131 f.). But it should be noted that in this
instance there is a common principle underlying the original OT pronouncement
and the application which Paul draws, and which can be formulated in terms of
principle: those who labour on anything (whether man or beast) have the right to
sustenance in view of the fruits of their labour. This applies to the quotation from
Deut. 25:4 and to all the other illustrations that Paul adduces in support of the
point.
This method of interpretation applies to other instances of alleged allegorical
exegesis in Paul: 1 Cor. 5:6 ff. (~ Leaven; — Feast); 1 Cor. 10:4 (— Eat, art.
pind; — Rock); Gal. 3:16 (— Abraham); Gal. 4:21—31 (— Abraham, art. Hagar;
—» Jerusalem). The vb. al/égored occurs only at Gal. 4:24 in a participial form which
is perhaps best rendered: “which things are allegorical [hatina estin allégorou-
mena]: for these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing
[children] for slavery; she is Hagar.’’ Paul goes on to compare Mount Sinai with the
present Jerusalem, symbolizing bondage to the law, which contrasts with the
Jerusalem which is above which is free and is “‘our mother’ (Gal. 4:26). In dis-
cussing whether this passage should be regarded as an allegory or a type, A. T.
Hanson draws the following distinction: ‘“‘An allegory is an explanation of the
text that replaces the literal sense and has a purely arbitrary connection with it.
In an allegory each detail corresponds to some idea or person in the complex which
755
PARABLE
it expresses. A type is a pattern or set of circumstances which reproduces before-
hand that set of circumstances of which it is a type’”’ (Studies in Paul’s Technique
and Theology, 1974, 94). He goes on to restate Paul’s contrast in the following
basic terms:
“Hagar the slave bears a son who “The unbelieving Jews, enslaved to the
persecutes the son of Sarah, the free Torah, persecute believing Christians,
woman. She and her son are cast out who are free in Christ. The unbelieving
by divine command.” Jews are rejected by God.”
Hanson concludes that the “‘allegory”’ is “‘really an elaborate piece of typology”’
(op. cit., 95). It may be added that Paul’s use of the vb. allégore6é should in any
case not be interpreted in the light of later usage which was bound up with philo-
sophical ideas alien to Paul. (On Paul’s exegesis see further E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of
the Old Testament, 1955; A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, 1965;
and ‘‘Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture’, ‘“‘Paul’s Technique of Interpretation’,
and ‘‘Paul as Exegete and Theologian’’, in Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology,
1974, 136-68, 169-200, 201-224.)
10. The riddle or dark saying (ainigma) is not a NT literary form. The word
occurs in Philo, Josephus (Ap. 1, 114 f.), and Sib. 3, 812, but only at 1 Cor. 13:12
in the NT. In the context Paul is contrasting — knowledge with faith, hope and
love (v. 13), and points out that blepomen gar arti di’ esoptrou en ainigmati (lit.
“For now we look through a glass in a riddle’’). Looking glasses were made at
Corinth, and the fact that they do not give a direct vision of reality underlines
Paul’s point about the limitations of knowledge. The preposition dia (through)
is to be explained by the fact that the image in the mirror appears to lie on the
further side (C. K. Barrett, 4 Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
BNTC, 1968, 307), and perhaps also by the fact that it is through the medium of
phenomena that we apprehend reality. Barrett also points out that the image of the
mirror was used by Philo to suggest that man can have a clear and full knowledge
of God (Abr., 153), and that the number seven provides a mirror reflecting the way
that God orders the universe (Decal. 105). 2 Cor. 3:18 uses the ptc. katoptrizontes,
““beholding as in a mirror’. With regard to the phrase en ainigmati, Barrett thinks
that it reflects Num. 12:8, where God says that he will speak to Moses face to face
(v. 12) and not di’ ainigmaton, ‘“‘through riddles’’, i.e. obscurely. But the expression
would be understandable to members of the Corinthian church not versed in the
OT. Apollo was known for delivering obscure riddles (cf. the complaint of the
chorus of Cassandra that she spoke in riddles [ex ainigmaton], Aesch., Ag. 1112).
For Paul what we apprehend in the present life is like a riddle. It is obscure and
enigmatic. It contrasts with knowledge in the future state, when we shall see face
to face and know even as we are already known (cf. Matt. 5:8). C. Brown
eae (paroimia), proverb, wise saying; dark saying,
CL The noun paroimia occurs from Aeschylus, Ag. 264 on; cf. Sophocles, Aj. 664;
Plato, Rep. 1, 329). Etymologically it is derived from para, along, and oimé
756
PARABLE
path, way, the plot of a story or song, saga, song. The paroimia “‘states an experi-
enced truth of popular wisdom in a short and pointed form” (F. Hauck, TDNT V
854). As such, it expresses general timeless truth. Its popular and traditional form
distinguish it from the aphorism and the maxim (gnodmé; — Knowledge, art.
ginosko). But in Aristotle, Rhet. 2, 21, 1395, 17, the borderline is fluid. The lack of
framework distinguishes it from the apophthegm (a saying set in a particular
setting). Aristotle counted it with metaphor because of its vivid imagery (Rhet. 2, 11,
1413, 14). Others, because of the frequent references to animals and plants, with
fable (Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 5, 11, 21). Collections of proverbs were made
by Aristotle, Clearchus, Zenobius and Diogenian.
oT In the LXX paroimia only occurs 7 times, including the title of the Book of
Proverbs (1:1; 25:1 cf. also 26:7) and in Sir. (6:35; 8:8; 18:29; 39:3; 47:17).
In Prov. 1:1; 25:1 it translates Heb. masal/; elsewhere it occurs in the non-canonical
Sir. and occasionally translates masal. It is also found in variant translations in
other books. In Prov. and Sir. it is virtually a technical term for instruction by the
wise (— parabolé oT 2). In Philo (Abr. 235; Vit. Mos. 1, 156; 2, 29) it occurs with
the meaning proverb. Proverbs were very popular among the Rabbis. They were
introduced by such clauses as, ““Thus people say ...” and “It is said in the
proverb....”
NT 1. The logia of Jesus are often designated in their entirety as sayings. The
Gospel of Thomas, P. Oxy. 1, 654 f., 840, and the hypothetical collection of
logia (Q) thought to be behind Matt. and Lk. are collections of sayings. Sayings
in the sense of the instruction of the wise are to be found among the logia of Jesus
(e.g. Mk. 9:50 par. Lk. 14:34; cf. Matt. 5:13; Matt. 5:15 par. Lk. 11:33; 6:19
par. Lk. 12:33; Matt. 6:22 f. par. Lk. 11:34 f.). But they also occur in the epistles
(e.g. Rom. 12:20 quoting Prov. 25:21 f.; Heb. 12:5f. quoting Prov. 3:11 f ;
Jas. 4:6 quoting Prov. 3:34; 2 Pet. 2:22 quoting Prov. 26:11; 1 Cor. 15:33 with
a quotation from Menander’s lost comedy Thais, ‘Bad companyruins good morals’”’
[cf. C. K. Barrett, 4 Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC,
1968, 367]). In the logia of Jesus we find also proverbs which may be taken from
Rab. teaching (e.g. Matt.9:13 par. Mk. 2:17, Lk. 5:31; 4:22 par. Lk. 18:17;
Matt. 13:57 par. Mk. 6:4; Matt. 6:21 par. Lk. 13:34; Matt. 6:34; Matt. 7:4 par.
Lk. 6:42; Matt. 7:18 par. Lk. 6:43; Matt. 15:14 par. Lk. 6:39; Matt. 24:28 par.
Lk. 17:37; Lk. 4:23). It may be that these are sometimes new creations by Jesus,
which later became proverbs. In the epistles proverbs occur (e.g. Jas. 3:5, 12). In
2 Pet. 2:22 there is a wise saying and a proverb. Both are intended to demonstrate
the contemptible conduct of false teachers.
It is striking that, although sayings that can be classified as proverbs occur in
many places in the NT, only in few places (Jn. 10:6; 16:25, 29; 2 Pet. 2:22) are
proverbs and sayings designated by the word paroimia. The instances in Jn. occupy
an exceptional position.
2. It is only in Jn., in fact, that paroimia occurs (10:6; 16:25, 29) in the sense of
dark saying, or riddle. This meaning comes about because of the Heb. equivalent
masal and the consequent approximation to — parabolé. In retrospect Jesus’
discourse on the — shepherd (10:6) and, indeed, his discourses in general (16:25)
757
PARABLE
are characterized as dark sayings. The dark saying is contrasted with the later,
clear revelatory saying (16:25, 29). This can be understood chronologically; the
earthly Jesus spoke in riddles, the exalted Jesus speaks openly. But this interpre-
tation contains some difficulties. One cannot really characterize Jesus’ words in
Jn. as intellectually difficult to understand, nor can one distinguish between dark
and clear sayings. Dark here probably does not mean intellectually difficult. The
darkness: of the words does not reside in the words but in the hearer. Therefore the
words are dark and clear simultaneously. The words remain dark so long as the
hearer tries to understand them intellectually. ‘It is possible to understand the
words of Jesus only in the reality of the believing existence. Before that they are
incomprehensible — not in the sense of being difficult to grasp intellectually, but
because intellectual comprehension is not enough. It is precisely this that the
disciples must realize, namely that the commitment of one’s whole existence is
required to understand these words. They will be comprehensible in the new (i.e.
eschatological) existence: erchetai hora hote ktl. [‘the hour comes when etc.’]:
only then will Jesus speak to them parrhésia [openly]” (R. Bultmann, The Gospel of
John, 1971, 587). C. H. Peisker
—> Kingdom, — Secret, — Teach, — Wisdom, — Word
On parable:
(a). J. A. Baird, ““A Pragmatic Approach to Parable Exegesis”, JBL 76, 1957, 201-7; M. Black,
‘‘The Parables as Allegory’, BJRL 42, 1959-60, 273-87; E. C. Blackman, ‘“‘New Methods of
Parable Interpretation’”’, Canadian Journal of Theology 15, 1969, 3-13; G. Bornkamm, G. Barth,
H.-J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1963; F. H. Borsch, God’s Parable, 1975; R. E.
Brown, *‘Parable and Allegory Reconsidered’’, in New Testament Essays, 1965, 254-64; F. F. Bruce,
‘‘Parable’”’, ZPEB IV 590-97; and ‘‘ ‘Unwritten’ Sayings and Apocryphal Gospels’’, and ‘“The
Gospel of Thomas’’, in Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, 1974, 82-109,
110-58; R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 19682; T. A. Burkill, ““The Injunctions
to Silence in St. Mark’s Gospel’, TZ 12, 1956, 585-604; ‘‘Concerning St. Mark’s Conception
of Secrecy”, Hibbert Journal 55, 1956-57, 150-58; and Mysterious Revelation — An Examination
of the Philosophy of St. Mark’s Gospel, 1963; F. C. Burkitt, ““The Parable of the Ten Virgins’, J7S
30, 1929, 267-70; C. J. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus: Their Art and Use, 1931; C. H. Cave, “‘The
Parables and the Scriptures’, NTS 11, 1964-65, 374-87; J. D. Crossan, Jn Parables:. The Challenge
of the Historical Jesus, 1973; *“‘The Servant Parables of Jesus” and ‘‘Parable and Example in the
Teaching of Jesus”, Semeia 1, 1974, 17-104; ‘‘Parables as Religious and Poetic Experience’’, JR
53, 1973, 330-58; and ‘“‘A Basic Bibliography for Parables Research’’, Semeia 1, 1974, 236-74;
N. A. Dahl, ‘‘The Parables of Growth’’, StTh 5, 1951, 132-65: J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New
Testament, 1970; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 1936°; and Historical Tradition in the
Fourth Gospel, 1963, 366-88; A. Feldmann, The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis, 1927*; J. A.
Findlay, Jesus and his Parables, 1950; E. Fuchs, Studies of the Historical Jesus, SBT 42, 1964;
and ‘‘The New Testament and the Hermeneutical Problem” in J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb,
eds., New Frontiers in Theology, 1, The New Hermeneutic, 1964, 111-45, 232-43; R. W. Funk,
Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God, 1966, 133-62; B. Gerhardsson, The Good Samaritan —
The Good Shepherd-?, Coniectanea Neotestamentica, 16, 1958; H. L. Goudge, ‘“‘The Parable of the
Ten Virgins”, JTS 30, 1928-29, 399-401; M. D. Goulder, ‘‘Characteristics of the Parables in the
Several Gospels’”’, JTS New Series 19, 1968, 51-69; and Midrash and Lection in Matthew, 1974; R.
M. Grant and D. N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, 1960; W. J. Harrington, ‘“‘The Parables
in Recent Study (1960-1971)”, Biblical Theology Bulletin 2, 1972, 219-41; F. Hauck, paraboleé,
TDNT V 744-61; A. S. Herbert, ‘“‘The ‘Parable’ (ma@sal) in the Old Testament’, S/T 7, 1954, 180-
196; A. M. Hunter, /nterpreting the Parables, 1960; J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 19637;
A. R. Johnson, masal, VT Supplement 3, 1955, 162 ff.; G. V. Jones, The Art and Truth of the
Parables, 1964; J. D. Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13, 1969; ‘“‘Major Trends in
Parable Interpretation’’, Concordia Theological Monthly 42, 1971, 579-96; ‘‘The Parables of Jesus
in Current Research”, Dialog 11, 1972, 101-7; and “Ernst Fuchs’ Interpretation of the Parables’’,
758
PARABLE
Lutheran Quarterly 22, 1970, 380-95; E. M. Kredel, ‘‘Parable’’, EBT II 625-29; J. Krengel, ‘“‘Mar-
shal’’, The Jewish Universal Encyclopedia, 1939 ff., VII, 394 ff.; E. Linnemann, Parables of Jesus:
Introduction and Exposition, 1966; C. E. Macartney, The Parables of the Old Testament, 1955°;
T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus: Studies of its Form and Content, 19357; I. H. Marshall,
Eschatology and the Parables, 1963; B. M. Metzger, ed. Jndex to Periodical Literature on Christ
and the Gospels, 1966, 165-70 (for journal articles on the parables up to 1961); H. W. Montefiore,
‘*A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel according to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels’’,
NTS 7, 1960-61, 220-48 (reprinted in H. W. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas and the
Evangelists, 1962, 40-78; L. Mowry, ‘‘Parable’’, /DB III 649-54; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Gospel
Parables in the Light of their Jewish Background, 1936; R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son
of Man, 19437; N. Perrin, ‘““‘The Parables of Jesus as Parables, as Metaphors, and as Aesthetic
Objects: A Review Article’, JR 47, 1967, 340—47; ‘‘The Modern Interpretation of the Parables of
Jesus and the Problem of Hermeneutics’’, /nterpretation 25, 1971, 131-48; ‘‘Historical Criticism,
Literary Criticism and Hermeneutics in the Interpretation of the Parables of Jesus and the Gospel
of Mark Today”, JR 52, 1972, 361-75; and Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and
Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation, 1976; H. Riesenfeld, ‘“The Parables in the Synoptic
and Johannine Traditions’’, in The Gospel Tradition, 1970, 139-70; D. W. B. Robinson, ‘“The Use
- of Parabolé in the Synoptic Gospels’’, EQ 21, 1949, 93-108; J. A. T. Robinson, ‘“‘The Parable of
the Shepherd (John 10.1—5)’’, and “‘The ‘Parable’ of the Sheep and the Goats’’, Twelve New Testa-
ment Studies, SBT 34, 1962, 67-75 and 76-93; J. M. Robinson, ‘“‘Jesus’ Parables as God Happen-
ing’, in F. T. Trotter, ed., Jesus and the Historian: Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell,
1968, 134-50; B. T. D. Smith, The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels, 1937; C. W. F. Smith, The
Jesus of the Parables, 1948; R. A. Stewart, ‘“The Parable Form in the Old Testament and the
Rabbinic Literature’, EQ 36, 1964, 133-47; T. Stoneburner, ed., Parable, Myth and Language,
1968; S. Teselle, Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology, 1975; H. Thielicke,
The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus, 1960; A. C. Thiselton, ‘“The Parables as
Language-Event: Some Comments on Fuchs’s Hermeneutics in the Light of Linguistic Philosophy”
SJT 23, 1970, 437-68; D. O. Via, Jr., The Parables: Their Literary and Existential Dimension,
1967; and “Parable and Example Story: A Literary-Existentialist Approach’, Semeia 1, 1974,
105-33; and Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament, 1974; J. J. Vincent, ‘“The Parables of
Jesus as Self-Revelation”’, StudEyv (TU 73), 79-99; R. S. Wallace, Many Things in Parables, 1955;
D. Wenham, “‘The Synoptic Problem Revisited: Some New Suggestions about the Composition of
Mark 4:1-34;” 7B 23, 1972, 3-38; A. N. Wilder, ‘““Eschatology and the Speech-Modes of the
Gospel’’, in E. Dinkler, ed., Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburts-
tag, 1964, 19-30; M. F. Wiles, ‘Early Exegesis of the Parables’, SJT 11, 1958, 287-301.
(b). D. Buzy, Les Paraboles, 19481°; G. H. Dalman, “‘Viererlei Acker”, Paldstina-Jahrbuch 22,
1926, 120-32; G. Delling, ‘“‘Das Gleichnis vom gottlosen Richter’, ZNW 53, 1962, 1-25; J.
Dupont, “‘Le Chapitre des Paraboles’’, Nouvelle Revue Théologique 89, 1967, 800-20; G. Eichholz,
“Das Gleichnis als Spiel’, EvTh 21, 1961, 309-26 (reprinted in Tradition und Interpretation, ThB
29, 1965, 57 ff.); Jesus Christus und der Nachste, BSt 9, no date; and Einfiihrung in die Gleichnisse,
BSt 37, 1963; O. Eissfeldt, Der Maschal im Alten Testament, BZAW 24, 1913; P. Fiebig, Die
Gleichnisreden Jesu im Lichte der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters, 1912;
Der Erzahlungsstil der Evangelien, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 11, 1925; G. Fohrer,
E. L. Dietrich, N. A. Dahl, “‘Gleichnis und Parabel II’’, RGG* II 1615 ff. W. Forster, ‘“‘Das
Gleichnis von der anvertrauten Pfunden”’, in Verbum Dei Manet in Aeternum, Festschrift fiir O.
Schmitz, 1953, 37-56; K. Fror, Biblische Hermeneutik, 1961; Zum hermeneutischen Problem in der
Theologie, 1959; Hermeneutik, 1970*; O. Glombitza, “‘Der Perlenkaufmann’’, N7S 7, 1960-61,
153-61; ‘‘Das grosse Abendmahl. Lukas 14:12-24; NovT 5, 1962, 10-16; M. de Goedt, “‘L’Expli-
cation de la Parabole de I’Ivraie’’, RB 66, 1959, 32-54; H. Gollwitzer, Das Gleichnis vom barm-
herzigen Samariter, BSt 34, 1962; H. Greeven, ‘“‘Wer unter euch...?”, Wort und Dienst, Neue
Folge, 3, 1952, 86-101; H. Gressmann, Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus, Abhandlungen
der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 7, 1918; T. Gutt-
mann, Das Maschal-Gleichnis in tannaitischer Zeit, Dissertation Frankfurt, 1929; V. Hasler, “‘Die
k6nigliche Hochzeit. Matt. 22:1-14”, ThZ 18, 1962, 25-35; M. Harmaniuk, Les Paraboles Evangé-
liques, 1947; L. Hick, ““Zum Verstandnis des neutestamentlichen Parabelbegriffes”, BuK 1, 1954,
4-17; A. Jolles, Einfache Formen, 19567; A. Jiilicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, I-II, 19107; H.
Kahlefeld, Gleichnisse und Lehrstiicke im Evangelium, 1963; W. G. Kiimmel, ‘‘Das Gleichnis
759
PARABLE/PARADISE
von den bésen Weingartnern (Mk. 12, 1-9)’, Aux Sources de la Tradition Chrétienne, Mélanges
offerts a M. Goguel 1950, 120-131 (reprinted in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 207-17);
E. Linnemann, ‘“‘Uberlegungen zur Parabel vom grossen Abendmahl (Lukas 14, 15—-24/Matt. 22,
2-14)”, ZNW 51, 1970, 246-55; H. Ljungvik, ‘Zur Erklarung einer Lukasstelle. Lukas xvi, 7”’,
NTS 10, 1963-64, 289-94; E. Lohse, ‘‘Die Gottesherrschaft in den Gleichnissen Jesu’, EvTh
18, 1958, 145-57; I. K. Madsen, Die Parabeln der Evangelien und die heutige Psychologie,
1936; W. Marxsen, ‘“‘Redaktionsgeschichtliche Erklarung der sogenannten Parabeltheorie des
Markus”, ZTK 52, 1955, 255-71; M. Meinertz, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 1948+; ‘“Die Tragweite des
Gleichnisses von den zehn Jungfrauen’’, Synoptische Studien (presented to A. Wikenhauser),
1954, 94-106; and “Zum Versténdnis der Gleichnisse Jesu’’, Das Heilige Land 86, 1954, 41-47;
W. Michaelis, Das hochzeitliche Kleid, 1939; and Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 1956°; W. Monselewski,
Der barmherzige Samariter, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 5, 1967; R. Morgen-
thaler, ‘““Formgeschichte und Gleichnisauslegung”, ThZ 6, 1950, 1-16; and Kommendes Reich,
1952 (cf. H. Conzelmann, ‘“‘R. Morgenthaler, Kommendes Reich’, ThZ 9, 1953, 306 f.); F. Muss-
ner, “‘Gleichnisauslegung und Heilsgeschichte. Dargetan am Gleichnis von der selbstwachsenden
Saat (Mk. 4, 26-29)”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 64, 1955, 257-66; and Die Botschaft der
Gleichnisse Jesu, 1961; C. H. Peisker, ‘‘Das Alte Testament - Gabe und Aufgabe’’, in Kleine
Predigttypologie, II, 1965; ‘‘Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf und vom verlorenen Groschen’’,
Evangelischer Erzieher, 1967, 58 ff.; and “‘Konsekutives hina in Mark. 4, 12”, ZNW 59, 1, 1968;
E, Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu. Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung, Lunds Universi-
rets Arsskrift Neue Folge, Avd. I, 49, 5, 1953; J. Piort, Paraboles et Allégories Evangeéliques, 1949;
G. Schille, ‘‘Gleichnis’”, BHHW I 577 ff.; J. Schniewind, ‘“‘Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn’’,
Die Freunde der Busse, 1956, 34-87; H. Schiirmann, ‘“‘Das Thomasevangelium und das lukanische
Sondergut’’, BZ Neue Folge’, 1963, 236-60; G. Stahlin, ‘“Die Gleichnishandlungen Jesu’’, in
Kosmos und Ekklesia, Festschrift fiir W. Stahlin, 1953, 9-22; W. Stahlin, Symbolen. Vom gleichnis-
haften Denken, 1958; H. Weinel, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 1929°; H. Zimmermann, “‘Die Botschaft der
Gleichnisse Jesu’’, Bild und Leben 2, 1961, 92 ff.
See also under paroimia for further literature on the Gospel of Thomas.
On allegory, typology and ainigma:
(a). F. Buichsel, allégored, TDNT I 260-63; C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 1952; A. T.
Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, 1965; and Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology,
1974; R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s
Interpretation of Scripture, 1959; G. Kittel, ainigma, TDNT I 178 ff.; G. W. H. Lampe and K.
Woollcombe, Essays on Typology, 1957; H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth, 1954.
(b). L. Goppelt, Typos, 1939; and “‘Allegorie’’, RGG? I 239 f.
On paroimia, proverbs, and sayings:
(a). J. Doresse, Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, 1959; A. Guillaumont, H.-C. Puech, G.
Quispel, W. Till and Yassah ‘Abd al Masih The Gospel according to Thomas, Coptic Text Estab-
lished and Translated, 1959; F. Hauck, paroimia, TDNT V 854 f.; A. J. B. Higgins, ““Non-Gnostic
Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas’’, NovT 4, 1960, 292-306; D. Kidner, The Proverbs: An Intro-
duction and Commentary, TC, 1964; T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, As Recorded in the
Gospels according to St. Matthew and St, Luke arranged with Introduction and Commentary, 1949;
R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, Anchor Bible, 1965; R. N. Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs,
SBT 45, 1965; R. McL. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 1960.
(b). F. Baumgartner, [sraelitische und altorientalische Weisheit, 1933; E. Haenchen, Die Botschaft
des Thomas-Evangeliums, 1961; C. A. Keller, “Sprichwort, Spruch’, BHHW IIII 1837 f.; U.
Skladny, Die altesten Spruchsammlungen, 1962; C. Westermann, “‘Ratsel’’, BHHW III 1552 f.
Paradise
| TA PAOEIT OC | 1apaoelaoc (paradeisos), garden, park, paradise.
CL 1. paradeisos is a loan-word from the Middle Iranian pardez (Avestan pairidaéza,
an encircling wall, circular enclosure, garden), and means a garden, park or
760
PARADISE
paradise. Xen. uses the word of the public gardens of the Persian kings and nobles
(Anab. 1, 2, 7; 2, 4, 14; Cyr. 1, 3, 14; Hell. 4, 1, 15).
2. Myths from many nations speak of a land or a place of blessedness in primeval
times or (in the present) on the edge of the known world, where gods live and
whither heroes or particularly distinguished mortals were carried away or went
after death. Within the world of the OT there were the paradise myths of the Meso-
potamian or Iranian culture, and also the conceptions of the Phoenicians (cf.
Ezek. 28:13 ff.). In Greece people were aquainted with the picture of the Elysian
fields and the Isles of the Blessed.
oT In the LXX the word is found 47 times, predominantly as trans. of Heb. gan or
ganndh, a garden. Of these passages 13 belong to Gen. 2 and 3, 4 to Ezek., and
3 to Isa. In each case the reference is to the garden of God, either as the Yahwistic
narrative describes it or as it is expected to be again. In Neh. 2:8; Eccl. 2:5; Cant.
4:13 paradeisos is a translation of the loan-word pardés deriving from the Iranian,
meaning orchard, forest. In Isa. 51:3 1t renders Heb. ‘éden.
1. A continuous or coherent paradise-myth cannot be established in the OT.
At least, as far as anything of the sort was also known in Israel, it was excluded
under the influence of Yahwistic faith, except for a few individual motifs which
appear sporadically here and there — the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, the
water of life (Gen. 2 and 3; 13:10; Ezek. 28:13 ff.; 31:8f.; Job 15:7f.). It is
significant that there is no unified answer to the question of place. According to
Gen. 2:8, paradise, at the beginning of the creation, lay in the East; according
to Gen. 2:10-14, it was possibly in the North. It is conceived of as a lovely orchard
in which the tree of — life and the tree of — knowledge stood. Here God walked,
and has handed over the garden to men for cultivation. In consequence of the
first — sin the first humans were driven out of it. Return to it is impossible since
the — cherub stands in front of it guarding all access.
2. In later Judaism there were many varied speculations about the paradise
of Gen. 2 and 3. It was assumed that it was created before time, or on the third
day of creation, and that in consequence of Adam’s sin it was removed and hidden
either at the extreme edges of the earth, on a high mountain or in heaven. It is
located in the third — heaven (Ap. Mos. 37:5 and Sl.Enoch 8:1).
With the infiltration of the Gk. doctrine of the immortality of the soul paradise
becomes the dwelling-place of the righteous during the intermediate state. In time,
pious imagination increasingly embellished the conception of paradise. It had
walls and gates and angels to watch over it. Light shone on the righteous. The tree
of life was there, and fragrant streams flowed through it.
In the renewed creation paradise will again emerge from its concealment. God
or the messiah will bring it, as the dwelling-place of the righteous and blessed, to
the renewed earth, to Palestine, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Taught by
God himself, the righteous will study the Torah in paradise, and God will prepare
for them the messianic meal. Above all, they may then enjoy the — fruit of the tree
of life.
NT 1. In the NT the word only occurs in 3 places.
(a) In Lk. 23:43 it is no doubt dependent on contemporary Jewish conceptions,
and refers to the at present hidden and intermediate abode of the righteous. Jesus
761
PARADISE
promises the robber fellowship with him already “today” in paradise, and thus
allows him to share in forgiveness and blessedness. The intermediate state thus
becomes essentially fellowship with Christ (cf. Acts. 7:58; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23).
It may be noted, however, that E. E. Ellis offers a somewhat different interpreta-
tion. According to the late Jewish writing Test.Lev. 18:10, the messiah was expected
to “open the gates of paradise’’. ‘‘Luke declares that in his death and resurrection
Jesus opened the gates of Paradise and was exalted there with his ‘body’ ” (The
Gospel of Luke, New Century Bible, 1966, 269; cf. the same author’s “‘Present and
Future Eschatology in Luke’, NTS 12, 1965-66, 27-41).
(b) In 2 Cor. 12:4 Paul speaks of an experience of the — Spirit in which he was
caught up into paradise (at present hidden), and there heard words “‘which man
may not utter.’ The statement is parallel to what he says in v. 2; “I know a man in
Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven — whether in the
body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.”’ The context concerns the —
boasts of the Corinthians. Paul counters this by saying: “If I must boast, I will
boast of the things that show my weakness” (2 Cor. 11:30). He then relates (in the
third person) this experience and declares: “On behalf of this man I will boast,
but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses” (12:5). He
concludes the argument by telling of his thorn in the flesh which God gave him to
prevent him from being too elated (— Fruit, art. skolops). Despite his persistent
prayer for its removal, God did not remove it, but said to him: ““My grace is suffi-
cient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’’ From this Paul draws
the conclusion: “I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power
of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, J am content with weak-
nesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then
I am strong” (12:9 f.).
For a full discussion of what Paul meant by “the third heaven’’ and paradise
see C. K. Barrett, 4 Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC,
1973, 308 ff. The reference to the experience fourteen years previously underlines
the fact that Paul had such an experience long before the foundation of the Corin-
thian church. Barrett does not think that it refers to the Damascus road experience,
for Paul did not regard this as a vision. To Philo contact with heaven meant being
out of the body, and he held that Moses had such an experience (Som. 1, 36; cf.
Josephus, War 7, 349). Paul’s insistence that he does not know whether it was in or
out of the body contrasts with current and gnostic views of spirituality. ““The
experience described in our passage may be thought of as an anticipation of the
final transference of believers to heaven, or Paradise”’ (op. cit., 309). Barrett sees
here affinities between mysticism and apocalyptic, for apocalyptists describe the
future on the basis of insight granted them in the present into what is already in
heaven (ibid.; cf. C. K. Barrett, ““New Testament Eschatology’, SJT 6, 1953,
138 f.). He notes parallels in various fields. Eth.Enoch 39:3 f.; 52:1; Sl.Enoch 7;
8, 11; 18; 3 Bar. 2:2 describe visits to numerous heavens. In rabbinic writing
Hagigah 14b mentions four men who entered paradise. But already in Plato’s
Republic the Myth of Er tell show the soul of Er who had been slain in battle visits the
place of judgment and returns with a report to the rest of mankind (10, 614-21).
Philo speaks of ecstatic experiences both as the descent of a divine influence coming
upon him (Migr.Abr. 34 f.) and as a heavenly ascent (Spec.Leg. 3, 1 f.).
762
PARADISE
Ancient cosmology pictured three, five, seven, ten and various numbers of
heavens, though three was a commonly accepted number (SB III 531 ff.). Paul’s
use of either this term or that of paradise gives no clear indication of his cosmo-
logical views. He may be doing no more than using a commonly accepted image to
suggest what by his own account is ineffable (cf. v. 4), though possibly the number
three may imply perfection (— Number, art. treis). Sl.Enoch 8 placed the third
heaven in paradise, and Apc.Mos. 37:5 pictures God commanding Michael to
lift Adam up into paradise, the third heaven, and leave him there until the day of
judgment.
The idea of hearing unutterable (arrhéta) words is found in the mystery religions
(cf. Apuleius, Metamorphoses 11, 23). But Barrett thinks that Paul was not
dependent on them here (op. cit., 311). Such language is found in Philo (Leg. All.
2, 57; Det.Pot.Ins. 175), and the notion of secret revelation was also current in
rabbinic Judaism (J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1969, 237-41). The
idea of a sealed revelation is found already in the OT (Isa. 8:16; Dan. 12:4; cf.
Sl.Enoch 17; Rev. 14:3). In all this Paul is using contemporary images of the tran-
scendent world to describe an ecstatic experience which he himself has had and
which was evidently far more impressive than anything of which his opponents
could boast. But this was something for his own private, personal edification,
which would not have come out but for the boasting at Corinth. What the Christian
should boast of is his weaknesses, that God may be glorified.
(c) In Rev. 2:7 the Spirit promises to the church of Ephesus: “To him who
conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.”
The passage may be compared with Test.Lev. 18:11; Eth.Enoch 24:4; 25:4 f.
which suggests that as early as the 2nd century B.c. the tree of life was thought of in
connection with the temple at Jerusalem (cf. R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St.
John, ICC, I, 1920, 54 f.). The thought takes up that of Gen. 3, where after eating
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, man is barred from the tree of life.
Those who overcome the trials and temptations of this world (in particular the
opposition of the — Nicolaitans) are promised not only restoration of what —
Adam lost but access to life in a way which Adam never had. Rev. 22:1 f., 14
gives a final vision of the tree of life in its final vision of paradise (though it does
not use the word) in terms of the new — Jerusalem: ““Then he showed me the river
of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the
Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also on either side of the river,
the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the
leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. ... Blessed are those who
wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may
enter the city by the gates.”’
2. In the further course of church history many extra-biblical motifs, pictures
and ideas were absorbed into the conception of paradise, in order to paint the state
of the blessed after death in bright colours. The point of contrast, on the one hand,
was Jesus’ word to the robber (Lk. 23:42), which was generalized and referred to
every believer, although beyond the promised fellowship with Christ (see above 1)
there is virtually no biblical motivation, least of all in the detailed descriptions of
paradise. The speculations in the church concerning paradise and the conceptions
of popular piety are also linked with the fact that the doctrine of the immortality
763
PARADISE/PATIENCE
of the soul came in to take the place of NT eschatology with its hope of the —
resurrection of the dead and the new creation (Rev. 21 f.), so that the soul receives
judgment after death and-attains to paradise now thought of as other-worldly,
whereas sinners go to — hell. In this, the statements of Rev. 21 f. are also used to
describe — heaven and paradise. H. Bietenhard, C. Brown
—> Adam, — Ecstasy, — Fall, — Heaven, — Hell
(a). C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1973, 308 ff.;
E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, New Century Bible, 1966, 268 f.; and ‘‘Present and Future Escha-
tology in Luke’’, NTS 12, 1965-66, 27-41; L. F. Hartmann, “‘Sin in Paradise’, CBQ 20, 1958,
26-40; F. Hvidberg, ““The Canaanite Background of Genesis I-III’, VT 10, 1960, 285-94; J.
Jeremias, paradeisos, TDNT V 765-73; I. Lewy, ‘““The Two Strata in the Eden Story’, Hebrew
Union College Annual 27, 1956, 93-99; H. K. McArthur, “‘Paradise’’, 7DB III 655 f.; J. Scharbert
and J. Michl, “‘Paradise’’, EBT II 629-33.
(b). J. B. Bauer, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 1964*; J. Begrich, ‘“‘Die Paradieserzahlung’’, ZA W 50,
1932, 33-116; H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spdtjudentum, 1951,
161 ff.; F. M. T. de Liagre Bohl, A. Jepsen, F. Hesse, ‘‘Paradies’’, RGG* V 95 ff.; J. Dus, “‘Zwei
Schichten der biblischen Paradiesgeschichte’’, ZAW 71, 1959, 97-113; G. Fohrer, ‘‘Die Struktur
der alttestamentlichen Eschatologie’’, TLZ 85, 1960, 401-20; J. B. Frey, ‘“‘La Vie de l’au-dela dans
les Conceptions Juives au Temps de Jésus-Christ’’, Biblica 13, 1932, 129-68; W. Fuss, Die soge-
nannte Paradieserzahlung, 1968; K. Galling, Paradeisos, Pauly-Wissowa, 18, 2, 1131 ff.; H. Gross,
Die Idee des ewigen und allgemeinen Weltfriedens im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, 1956;
J. Jeremias, ““Zwischen Karfreitag und Ostern’”’, ZNW 42, 1949, 194 ff. (reprinted in Abba, 1966,
323 ff.); G. Lambert, ‘“‘Le Drame du Jardin d’Eden’’, Nouvelle Revue Théologique 76, 1954, 917-48;
H.-G. Leder, Die Auslegung der zentralen theologischen Aussagen der Paradieserzahlung (Gen. 2,
4b-3,24), I, Im Alten Testament, im Judentum und im Neuen Testament, Dissertation, Greifswald,
1960; L. Ligier, Péché d’Adam et Péché du Monde, 1960, 152-231; M. Metzger, Die Paradieser-
zahlung, 1959; H. Renckens, Urgeschichte und Heilsgeschichte, 1959; J. Ringborn, Paradisus
Terrestris, 1958; SB IV, 2, 1119-65; T. Schwegler, Die biblische Urgeschichte im Lichte der For-
schung, 1960; J. J. Stamm and H. J. Bietenhard, Der Weltfriede im Lichte der Bibel, 1959; P.
Volz, Die Eschatologie der jtidischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1934; A. Weiser,
“Die biblische Geschichte von Paradies und Stindenfall’’, Deutsche Theologie 4, 1937, 9-37; H.
Windisch, Der Zweite Korintherbrief, KEK, 1924.
Patience, Steadfastness, Endurance
All the words dealt with under this heading refer to man’s endurance when faced
with the adversities of life, whether his reaction be one of passive submission or of
courageous resistance. makrothymia almost always expresses the idea of passivity,
while kartered rarely does so. Being strictly military terms, the various words are
readily used as metaphors in connection with the battles of life. The word with the
widest range of meaning is anechomai, which originally meant to hold up, lift up,
then, intrans., to cease, and mid., to hold oneself erect, to endure. kartered means to
be strong, steadfast, also to do something persistently in the face of opposition; in
Gk. ethics it is a technical term for the upright bearing of the wise man. On the
other hand, makrothymia, which is rare in Gk., denotes resigned submission to a
situation which is to all intents and purposes irremediable. In theology, however,
the word acquires a more positive meaning: the makrothymia of God is his long-
suffering or forbearance, standing between the extremes of wrath and grace.
hypomeno means in the first instance to remain behind, to await. It acquired then
the more active sense of overcoming difficulties: to persevere, stand firm, stand
one’s ground.
764
PATIENCE
[avdéxour avéyopial (anechomai), bear, endure; avoyn (anoché),
XOH delay, limited period, restraint, forbearance; avextoc
(anektos), bearable, tolerable, endurable.
CL The vb. anechomai is also used in the act. in profane Gk., the prefix ana- giving
it a wide range of meanings: with an object to hold up, to honour, to hold back;
without an object, to stand out, but also to cease, to persevere, endure. Jt governs
both the acc. and the gen. In the NT the vb. occurs only in the mid., meaning to
hold out, endure. This is the form which also predominates in other literature.
The Stoics had the motto anechou kai apechou, “Bear with and bear without”’
(Aulus Gellius 17, 19).
oT In the LXX the vb. translates several Heb. roots, all of which express the idea
of restraining some action or emotion. But often the pressure building up
behind it eventually causes it to burst forth with dire results. Such statements can
refer to men (Gen. 45:1; Job 6:10), or to God (Isa. 1:13; 42:14). There is a
tendency, however, to portray God as exercising the restraint, and man as giving
way to the vehement reaction: man cries out in anguish at the silence and inaction
of God (Isa. 63:15; 64:12). The remaining instances of the vb. occur at | Ki. 12:24;
Job 6:26; Amos 4:7; Hag. 1:10; Isa. 46:4; Sir. 48:3; 2 Macc. 9:12; 3 Macc. 1:22;
4 Macc. 1:35; 13:27. The noun anoché occurs in the LXX only once (1 Macc.
12:25), and then in the purely temporal sense of “‘delay’’.
NT 1. In the NT anechomai occurs 15 times, mainly in Paul (10 times), but with
little consistency of usage. Its meaning is difficult to determine because of its
frequent occurrence in passages from an earlier tradition and also in formal
phrases. In Col. 3:13 its proximity to the catalogue of five virtues is significant,
but the pres. part is intended to qualify the final item in the list just enumerated,
namely — makrothymia (E. Lohmeyer, KEK 9, ad loc.). ‘““Put on then, as God’s
chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness and
patience, forbearing one another [makrothymian, anechomenoi allélon]....’” The
personal object, however, indicates a characteristic aspect of NT usage. When
forbearance is exercised, virtue is no longer self-centred; an essential part of the
Christian calling is the service of others. Another important point arising from the
use of allélén (one another) is the reciprocal nature of forbearance, explicitly
stated in the verse though clearly implied elsewhere. Eph. 4:2 makes a similar point:
as the prisoner of the Lord, Paul urges his readers to walk worthily of their calling
“with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love
[anechomenoi allélon en agapé|’’..
In love there is mutual forbearance, hence Paul’s plea to the Corinthians: “Do
bear with me [alla kai anechesthe mou]!” (2 Cor. 11:1b, cf. 1a). He comes to them
as weak, and insignificant in presence without any of the outward marks of apos-
tolic authority borne by the “‘super-apostles”’ (11:5). But he is an — apostle and,
as such, a bearer of the truth of Christ; Christ bears the Corinthians in his love,
therefore they should bear with him. The strong theological content of mutual
forbearance becomes apparent here. In suffering the one sent to them, the bearers
“suffer”? or receive the one who has sent him. When they are admonished or in-
structed, they accept the message as from its divine source, from the God who is
765
PATIENCE
full of longsuffering towards them (cf. Job 13:22; 2 Tim. 4:3). There is a play on
the vb. throughout the chapter in the contrast drawn with the way that they bear
false teachers: “‘For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we
preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you
accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily
enough [kalds anechesthe]’ (11:4). “‘For you gladly bear with fools [hédedés gar
anechesthe ton aphronon], being wise yourselves! For you bear it [anechesthe] if a
man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on
airs, or strikes you in the face” (11:19 f.). (For further discussion see C. K. Barrett,
A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1973, 270-92.)
anechometha in | Cor. 4:12 should be construed as having a personal object, by
analogy with the surrounding vbs. (“‘we bless” and ‘“‘we speak peace’’). In other
words, Paul does not simply “‘endure”’ when persecuted: he is longsuffering to-
wards his persecutors. There may be no clear evidence of a reference here to Matt.
25:35, but certainly Paul’s words are very reminiscent of this parable.
In Acts 18:14 the vb. is used as a technical term for receiving an accusation in the
pronouncement of Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia: “‘If it had been a question of
crime or grave misdemeanour, I should, of course, have given you Jews a patient
hearing [kata logon an aneschomén hymon|” (NEB).
The only occurrence of the vb. in the Synoptic Gospels is in the question of
Jesus: “‘O faithless and perverse generation, how long am I to be with you? How
long am I to bear with you [anexomai hymon]?” (Matt. 17:17 par. Mk. 9:19, Lk.
9:41). The occasion, as Mk. brings it out, is the disciples’ failure to cast out the
dumb spirit which was afflicting an epileptic boy. ‘“These words express, not dis-
gust with the people, but the prophetic exasperation of Jesus at the blindness of
those who refuse to accept the presence and power of God. A similar idea finds
expression in Jn. 14:9” (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972,
270; — Generation; cf. Deut. 32:5 LXX).
In 2 Thess. 1:4 the reference is to enduring afflictions: ‘““Therefore we ourselves
boast of you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your
persecutions and in the afflictions which you are enduring [tais thlipsesin hais
anechesthe|’’. On the other hand, in Heb. and 2 Tim. the reference is to Christian
teaching and exhortation. In the former case the appeal is to the bearing with the
word of exhortation contained in the letter (anechesthe tou logou tés parakléseos,
Heb. 13:22). In the latter case the allusion is to the fickleness of those who cannot
bear sound teaching: ‘“‘For the time is coming when people will not endure sound
teaching [hote tés hygiainousés didaskalias ouk anexontai], but having itching ears
they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings” (2 Tim. 4:3).
2. The noun anoché occurs only in Rom. 2:4 and 3:25, where in both cases it
refers to the forbearance of God. The religious Jew is reminded that he is not
exempt from judgment just because he is a member of God’s chosen people (Rom.
2:3). “Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and
patience [tés chréstotétos autou kai tés anochés kai tés makrothymias|? Do you not
know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4). Later
on Paul explains how the age of forbearance is related to the cross of Christ,
‘“‘whom God put forth as an expiation [or propitiation, hilastérion] by his blood to
be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine
766
PATIENCE
forbearance [en té anoché tou theou] he had passed over former sins [dia tén paresin
ton progegonoton hamartématon]” (Rom. 3:25). ““God had passed over (the original
word means ‘connived at’, ‘ignored’) past sins, not forgiven them, but this he had
done only in his long-suffering forbearance. In the long run, a righteous God
could not ‘connive at’ iniquity; and the full weight of his righteous anger bore
down upon Christ’? (M. Black, Romans, New Century Bible, 1973, 70). God res-
trained his wrath until he openly displayed his righteousness in Christ and brought
to an end the period of the law.
Apart from the fact that in the NT anoché is used only of God, there is no clear-
cut distinction between anoché and makrothymia, However, certain nuances may
be detected. makrothymia is undoubtedly less active and vigorous, and may be
equally well translated as patience. Furthermore, it has stronger eschatological
overtones, looking forward to God’s final judgment, whereas anoché denotes the
period of God’s gracious forbearance with particular reference in Rom. to Israel
and the period up to the cross of Christ.
3. The adj. anektos, bearable, tolerable, occurs in the comparative form in Jesus’
pronouncement on the Jewish cities which had rejected him. It will be more
tolerable (anektoteron) for Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 11:22; Lk. 10:14) and Sodom
and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15; 11:24; cf. Mk. 6:11 TR; Lk. 10:12) in the day of
judgment. The examples are instances of heathen cities on which judgment had
fallen (Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. 19; cf. Isa. 1:9; Jub. 36:10; Lk. 17:29; Rom.
9:29; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7), or on which it had been pronounced (Tyre and Sidon,
Isa. 23; Ezek. 26:28; Joel 3:4; Amos 1:9f.; Zech. 9:2 ff.). There is a certain
deliberate paradox in these pronouncements in that these places were notorious
centres of wickedness in the OT, whereas the places in Galilee on which Jesus
pronounces judgment were relatively insignificant. Moreover, there is the implicit
claim that Jesus’ appearance is more crucial than any of the prophetic pronounce-
ments and therefore that the guilt of rejection is all the greater.
U. Falkenroth, C. Brown
| Palen ates Kaptepé@ (kartereod), be strong, steadfast, persevere;
PASE | 1 pookaptépéw (proskartered), persevere with, persist in;
1 poaoKkaptépnaic (proskarterésis), persistence, steadfastness, perseverance.
CL & OT kartereé, from kratos, — strength, meaning to remain strong, steadfast,
to endure, is found in profane Gk. from the 4th century B.c. and has the same
sense in the LXX (cf. Job 2:9 translating Heb. hazaq, hiph., to persist in; Sir. 2:2;
12:15). In Isa. 42:14 it translates pa‘ah, groan. Elsewhere it is without equivalent.
The word is used in 4 Macc. 9:9, 28 and passim of the patient endurance of Jewish
martyrs (cf. 10:1 f.; 13:11; 14:9). The compound proskartereo (with en or the dat.)
has the same basic meaning, but gives greater emphasis to the time element: to hold
out, to persist, persevere with a person, persist in an opinion or activity. In Num.
13:20(21) the vb. means to persevere; in Tob. 5:8 (Symmachus) to expect; while
in Sus. 6 (Theodotion) it refers to a prolonged stay. Outside the NT the noun
proskarterésis is found once in Philodemus (lst cent. B.c.) and twice in inscriptions
of the Jewish diaspora (Panticapaeum on the Black Sea).
767
PATIENCE
NT |. In the NT kartered is found only in Heb. 11:27, describing the faith of
—> Moses. According to Heb. 11:1, 3, ~ faith is a persuasion wrought by God
(F. Bichsel, 7DNT II 476) of invisible things. Thus Moses is said to have endured
as seeing him who is invisible [ton gar aoraton hos horon ekarterésen]. The kind of
endurance, which clings tenaciously and expectantly to the invisible God, makes
possible that attitude of faith exemplified by Moses, whom Christian readers are
to emulate (v. 24-28). (— Faith, art. pistis; + Form, art. hypostasis; — Guilt,
Cause, Convict, art. elenchd). G. H. Whitaker offers an alternative interpretation
in view of the meaning that the vb. sometimes has in Plutarch (1, 99; 2, 681; 1,
996), i.e. maintain a fixed unmoved gaze. Thus the verse would mean that Moses
kept his eyes on the invisible as one who saw (“‘Hebrews xi. 27”, ExpT 27, 1915-16,
186).
2. The vb. proskartereod is found more frequently (10 times) and especially in
Acts: (a) It is sometimes used in a non-religious sense to indicate duration. Thus in
Mk. 3:9 Jesus tells his disciples to keep a boat constantly ready for him. Acts 8:13
and 10:7 refer to a prolonged or continuous stay with a person: after his baptism
Simon Magus resided with Philip; and soldiers are on the permanent staff of the
centurion Cornelius. In Rom. 13:6 Paul says that, as servants of God, rulers are
constantly engaged in their duties.
(b) Constancy and perseverance are particularly important in the Christian life.
Enduring faith as described in Heb. 11:27 has to be complemented by constancy in
—> prayer, hence the apostle’s earnest exhortations to Christians in Rom. 12:12;
Col. 4:2, echoing Christ’s teaching in Lk. 11:1-13; 18:1-8. Acts also uses the word
proskartereo to denote the spiritual attitude of the early church. The small flock
of disciples offered continuous prayer with one accord before — Pentecost, in
preparation for the promised filling of the Spirit (Acts 1:14). Similarly after Pente-
cost “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the
breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). In the early church the experience
of Pentecost produced Christians of great constancy and purpose. Immediately
after Pentecost they continued with one accord in the temple (Acts 2:46). The —
apostles saw it as their function to devote themselves (proskarterésomen) to the
ministry of the word and to prayer (Acts 6:4).
3. In the NT the noun proskarterésis is found only in Eph. 6:18. Here too Chris-
tians are encouraged to persevere in prayer and supplication; this supplication is
to be made in the Holy Spirit and is to include the apostle (see also Col. 4:2 f.).
“To that end keep alert with all perseverance [en pasé proskarterései|, making
supplication with all the saints, and also for me”’ (wv. 18f.). With these solemn
words the apostolic injunction receives the emphasis which its importance demands.
W. Mundle
Pe are Lak poOvpia (makrothymia), patience, longsuffering;
| wax pobouia | Lak poOvpiosg (makrothymos), longsuffering ; wax poOexpé@
(makrothyme6), be patient, longsuffering.
CL The word makrothymia, unlike other compounds of thymos (— anger, wrath),
appears late in Gk. (from Menander onwards), but is extremely rare. It denotes
768
PATIENCE
a purely and typically human virtue: the prolonged restraint of thymos, of anger or
agitation, i.e. patience, longsuffering (contrast oxythymia, sudden anger). For
whereas the gods know nothing of affliction, man has to bear his lot in patience.
There is always an element of resignation in the word, even when it describes the
kind of desperate endurance which one can only admire. Positively it expresses
persistence, or an unswerving willingness to await events rather than trying to
force them. Although perseverance and persistence were familiar to the Stoics, and
were, in fact, highly valued by them, makrothymia does not figure in their vocabu-
lary. This was possibly because of the widespread though erroneous belief that its
basic idea was one of passive resignation. It must be said that in ancient Greece
makrothymia is concerned primarily with the moulding of a man’s own character;
it is not a virtue exercised towards one’s fellows.
oT Although in profane Gk. makrothymia is used in a psychological sense, this
usage in the LXX is confined to the wisdom literature. On the other hand, the
adj. makrothymos frequently denotes an attribute of Yahweh. The anthropomor-
phic Heb. phrase ’erek ‘appayim (slow to anger) is often rendered by makro-
thymia or makrothymos (e.g. in Num. 14:18; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13; Nah.
1:3). These words are, therefore, inseparably linked with the idea of restrained
wrath, forbearance being exercised for a limited period only. The Israelites made
frequent reference to God’s forbearance (e.g. Exod. 34:6) and even appealed
to it when conscious of guilt (Wis. 15:1 ff.). They knew that, being a God of
forbearance, Yahweh was ready to bestow grace upon his people. But at the same
time the godly Israelite was aware of the tension between grace and wrath: it is
possible to exhaust God’s patience and cause his anger to burst forth (Ps. 7:12 ff.).
Even the obedient man sometimes found it hard to acquiesce in God’s forbearance
(Jer. 15:15; Jon. 4:2), but patience increasingly became a virtue required of the
wise (Prov. 19:11; Sir. 29:1 ff.), and was given prominence in the wisdom literature
over against other human qualities (Prov. 14:29; 16:32; 25:15). The meaning of
makrothymia tended to degenerate into mere leniency, a tendency opposed by the
rabbis in their discussions of the word. They considered that God’s purpose in
exercising forbearance was to lead men to amendment and repentance (J. Horst,
TDNT IV 379).
NT In the NT forbearance is a characteristic both of God and of the man who is
united with Jesus Christ. The noun is used only in the epistles; none of the words
occurs in the writings of John. The subject is treated thematically in Heb. 6:9-15;
Jas. 5:7-11; and to some extent in 2 Pet. 3:4 ff. makrothymia usually takes the
prep. epi, but pros, eis and dia are also found.
1. The connection between divine and human patience is made clear in the
parable of the unforgiving servant in Matt. 18:21-35 (note the use of the vb.,
makrothymeo, have patience, vv. 26, 29, not the noun). This parable may almost
be said to sum up the whole NT teaching on the matter. The parable immediately
follows instructions on what to do if a brother sins against one (Matt. 18:15—20)
and Jesus’ injunction to Peter to be willing to forgive not only seven times (which
exceeded the common rabbinic maximum of four times and the three occasions
just mentioned in the instructions of Jesus). The follower of Jesus should be willing
to forgive seventy times seven, i.e. a virtually unlimited number of times. The
769
PATIENCE
number recalls the words of Gen. 4:24 concerning vengeance: “If Cain is avenged
sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold’’. The parable of the unforgiving servant
illustrates the divine attitude to forgiveness and to our dealings with our fellow
men. The first servant owed the king ten thousand talents (18:24), or something
like a billion pounds, a sum which he could not possibly repay. He asks the king to
have patience (makrothyméson) and he will repay everything (18:26). But the king
does actually more; he remits the whole amount. But the servant then demands the
repayment of a hundred denarii (perhaps four or five pounds; a denarius is a
labourer’s daily wage in Matt. 20:2 ff.) from a fellow servant. He even puts him in
prison until he should repay the debt, despite the man’s pleas to have patience (again
makrothyméson, v. 29). On learning the true facts of the case, the king has the first
servant put in prison “‘till he should pay all his debt’ (v. 34). The parable concludes
with the pronouncement. “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of
you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart”’ (v. 35). It recalls the
Lord’s Prayer: Forgive us our debts just as we forgive our debtors (Matt. 6:14 f.).
“The duty of the servant to forgive is not dependent on ordinary human feelings,
but is linked directly to the attitude shown to him: ‘as (or because) I had mercy...
sO must you.’ This, in a sense, is the real point of the story and the key to the
obvious allegorization: the unforgiving will be excluded from God’s mercy (verse
35); and those who receive God’s pardon must show the same forgiving attitude to
others” (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 278). (For
detailed discussion of the parable in the light of its legal content and rabbinic
parables about debts see J. D. M. Derrett, ““The Parable of the Unmerciful Ser-
vant’, in Law in the New Testament, 1970, 32-47.)
2. A contrast is drawn between a debt so enormous as to defy repayment, and
one which could easily be met out of normal income. This is a vivid way of express-
ing the incomparable greatness of God’s longsuffering. At the same time long-
suffering makes possible our entry into newness of life. Similarly in Rom. 2:4 Paul
reminds us that God’s forbearance leads us to metanoia, repentance, by which he
means the obedience of the man who has been delivered from the power of sin.
In Rom. 2:4, as elsewhere, the background is that of God’s righteous anger, but
his patience, being linked with kindness (chréstotés), asumes the character of
benevolence (— Good). If this longsuffering were to be regarded merely as an
opportunity given to men for self-improvement and amendment of life, then his
wrath would be rendered innocuous. Paul puts the matter clearly in Rom. 9:22:
in his patience God suffers those who are appointed to wrath, in order to display
his power and mercy in the salvation of the elect (cf. 1 Pet. 3:20). 1 Tim. 1:16
speaks of the patience of Christ (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15), but likewise stresses its revelatory
character: ‘“‘But I received mercy, for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus
Christ might display his perfect patience [hapasan makrothymian] for an example
to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.” Paul is a living example of
divine patience, a proof of God’s mercy to sinners, and thus Timothy should
follow his example of patience (2 Tim. 3:10; 4:2).
3. In the parable of Matt. 18 human patience is shown to be related to (and
dependent on) divine patience. God in his longsuffering holds open the door to
newness of life, but such new life in the believer is proved genuine by the fact that
he practises —> forgiveness. Thus makrothymia comes into its own in the NT list
770
PATIENCE
of virtues. Paul incorporates these lists in his practical exhortations: the virtues
referred to are “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22; cf. Col. 1:11; 1 Thess. 5:14;
2 Tim. 3:10) or our ‘“‘walk in the Spirit” (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12). In the light of Matt.
18, however, one cannot regard these as special “‘charismatic virtues” (cf. H. Schlier,
Der Brief an die Galater, KEK 7, 1962#*, ad loc.). They are charismatic in the sense
that they are gifts of the Spirit, but they are not in any sense abnormal for the
Christian. Rather, they express the way a man behaves who through the for-
bearance of God has received grace and forgiveness (2 Cor. 6:1 ff.). The fact that
chréstotés and prajtés (> Humility, art. prays) are regularly found in the context
indicates that makrothymia in the NT is not what Gk. humanism held it to be,
namely a virtuous attitude cultivated exclusively in one’s own interests. Rather,
it is something active which makes a man always prepared to meet his neighbour
halfway and to share his life with him. In other words, human patience or for-
bearance in this sense is not a character trait but a way of life. Indeed, it is the
primary expression of — love, for “love is patient [makrothymei] and kind; love is
not jealous or boastful’ (1 Cor. 13:4).
4. There is, however, another aspect of patience which is required of believers
as they await “‘the coming of the Lord”’ (Jas. 5:7). Jas. 5:7—11 links together the
two aspects, namely that extended to our fellow-men and that which is needed to
cope with all the trials and tribulations of this world until the parousia. Therefore,
James exhorts his readers to be patient (Jas. 5:7 f., 10). They are to establish their
hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand (5:8). They are not to grumble at
each other, for the judge is standing at the doors (5:9). They are to follow the
example of the suffering and patience of the prophets (5:10) and be steadfast like
Job (5:11; cf. Job 1:21 f.; 2:10), remembering that the Lord is compassionate and
merciful (5:11; cf. Pss. 10:38; 111:4).
5. Patience is an aspect of faith and hope which was exhibited by Abraham and
which will likewise enable the believer to inherit the promises of God. This aspect
of patience is developed by Heb.: “‘And we desire each one of you to show the
same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you
may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit
the promises” (Heb. 6:11 f.). “And thus Abraham, having patiently endured,
obtained the promise” (Heb. 6:15; cf. Gen. 22:16 f.).
6. 2 Pet. 3 discusses the apparent delay in the parousia. This is not to be taken
as indefinite postponement but as a sign of God’s patience to give men full oppor-
tunity to repent. ““The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness,
but is forbearing towards you [makrothymei eis hymas], not wishing that any
should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). The remark is
directed specifically at the readers (“you’’). 2 Pet. 3:15 relates this to Paul’s teaching:
‘‘And count the forbearance [makrothymian] of our Lord as salvation. So also our
beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him’’ (cf. above
2; — anoché NT 2).
7. The interpretation of Lk. 18:7 has been the subject of considerable discussion.
The verse follows the parable of the unjust judge (Lk. 18:1—6), which was told to
teach the disciples “that they ought always to pray and not lose heart” (18:1). In
the parable the widow finally gets the judge to vindicate her because of her constant
petitioning. Similarly, Jesus asks: “‘And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to
77)
PATIENCE
him day and night? kai makrothymei ep’ autois?’”” The RSV translates this as
“Will he delay long over them?” This, however, does not bring out the meaning
of the vb. E. E. Ellis notes four possible alternative interpretations (The Gospel of
Luke, New Century Bible, 1966, 214). (i) “Will not God... be patient with their
complaint?’ Ellis himself favours this, seeing a parallel use in Matt. 18:26. It may
be added that the same preposition epi is used in both cases. Thus, whereas the
unjust judge vindicated the woman lest “‘she will wear me out by her continual
coming” (18:5), a fortiori God who is both loving and good will be patient with
his people and their cries. This fits the context of the parable and seems preferable
to the remaining alternatives. (ii) ‘‘...and be patient with the wicked” (cf. W.
Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Theologischer Handkommentar zum
Neuen Testament, 1, 1959, ad loc.; cf. 2 Pet. 3:9 f.). (iii) “*. . . and he is longsuffering
over them” (RV; cf. Rev. 6:11). (iv) “.... or can he just endure their plight” (cf.
H. Ljungvik, “Zur Erklarung einer Lukas-Stelle (Luk. xviii. 7)”, NTS 10, 1964-65,
293). U. Falkenroth, C. Brown
| bropévan— bmouéva@ (hypomend), be patient, persevere, endure, be
| bmopévn steadfast; bmopovy (hypomoné), patience, steadfastness,
endurance.
CL The vb. hypomeno, found since the time of Homer, is formed from the prep.
hypo and meno, remain, stay. It means to remain behind, stand one’s ground,
Survive, remain steadfast, persevere and also to wait, and (trans.) await. It is used
frequently in military contexts and at first is ethically neutral. From the time of
Plato the noun hypomoné also came into use, and from then on both words imply
value judgments in both a positive and a negative sense. Positively, steadfastness,
constancy and perseverance are among the noblest of manly virtues, equally
esteemed in the ethical systems of Plato and Aristotle. A proud Greek freeman
endures burdens, difficulties or dangers, without any thought of tangible or moral
reward but solely for the sake of his honour. But negatively, there is the dis-
honourable attitude of mere passive resignation in the face of degradation, abuse,
ostracism, slavery or tyranny, whether from fear, weakness or indolence (cf. F.
Hauck, TDNT, IV 581 ff.).
oT The LXX uses the vb. predominantly in the sense of wait and await, as a
rendering of the Heb. vb. gawah, await, and also hope; yahal, wait; hakah, wait
patiently; and other vbs. but which are less theologically significant. This personal
expectation seems to be grounded in the > covenant relationship for often it is
Israel as a nation that is called to wait upon God, while God himself, who rules
over all nations, is called specifically “the Hope of Israel” (Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Ps.
52:9; 130:5 ff.). Ultimately Israel’s hopes and longings were directed towards the
fulfilment of the covenant promise (Ps. 36:10; 34). Israel’s endurance has none of
the resigned attitude of a slave but reaches out towards God and draws his strength
from him as the object of all his hopes (Isa. 40:13). Thus hypomoné expresses the
attitude of the man living in the light of “‘the last days” (+ Goal, art. eschatos)
(Hab. 2:3; Zeph. 3:18; Dan. 12:12), and is later used in this sense in the Synoptic
Gospels.
172
PATIENCE
Job and some other later biblical writers also use the word in its Gk. sense of
being steadfast, holding one’s ground, persevering in distress (Job 6:10; Sir. 22:18),
or with some definite object in view. This usage runs through the literature of later
Judaism (especially 4 Macc.) and is eventually taken upon in the NT by Paul.
hypomeno is used for gawGh at Job 3:9; 17:13; Pss. 25(24):3, 5, 21; 27(26):14;
37(36):9, 34; 40(39):1; 52(51):9; 56(55):6; 69(68):6, 20; 119(118):95; 130(129):5;
Prov. 20:22; Isa. 25:9; 40:31; 49:23; 51:5; 60:9; Jer. 14:19, 22; Lam. 3:25. The
corresponding noun hypomoné stands for nouns formed from the same root:
miqweh, hope (1 Chr. 29:15; 2 Esd. 10:2; Jer. 14:8; 17:13); tigwah expectation,
hope (Job 14:19; Pss. 9:18; 62[61]:5; 71[70]:5); for gawdah (Ps. 39[38]:7); and
without Heb. equivalent at Sir. 2:14; 16:13; 17:24; 38:27; 41:2; 4 Macc. 1:11;
7:9;9:8, 30; 15:30; 17:4, 12, 17, 23. hypomeno stands for yahal at Jdg. 3:25; 2 Ki.
6:33; Job 6:11; 14:14; 32:16; Mic. 7:7; Lam. 3:21, 24; for hakah at Job 32:4;
Pss. 33(32):20; 106(105):13; Hab. 2:3; Zeph. 3:8; Isa. 64:3(4); Lam. 3:26; Dan.
12:12; for taman, hide, at Job 20:26; for yasab, tarry, at Num. 22:19; for kil,
contain, endure, at Mal. 3:2; for mahah linger, tarry, at Exod. 12:39; and qgim
stand up, endure, at Job 8:15. It is without Heb. equivalent at Jos. 19:47; Ez. 2:19;
Tob. 5:7; Job 7:3; 9:4; 15:31; 22:21; 33:5; 41:3(2); Pss. 142(141):7; 145(144):9;
Wis. 16:22; 17:5; Sir. 16:22; 22:18; 36:18(21); 51:8; Zech. 6:14; Isa. 64:4(5);
2 Macc. 6:20; 4 Macc. 5:23; 6:9; 7:22; 9:6, 22; 13:12; 15:31 f.; 16:1, 8, 17, 19,
21s 10:
NT 1. In the Synoptic Gospels the vb. occurs in the lit. sense of staying (of the boy
Jesus remaining in Jerusalem, Lk. 2:43), and in Jesus’ teaching where endurance
is a prerequisite of salvation. ““But he who endures to the end will be saved [ho
de hypomeinas eis telos houtos sothésetai]’ (Matt. 24:13 par. Mk. 13:13). The
parallel in Lk. is worded differently, using the vb. instead of the noun: “By your
endurance you will gain your lives [or souls] [en té hypomoné hymon ktésesthe tas
psychas hymon]’ (Lk. 21:19). The context is the eschatological discourse of Jesus,
where the disciples have just been warned of numerous trials including being hated
by all for the name of Jesus (Matt. 24:9; Mk. 13:13a; Lk. 21:17). The severity of
the situation calls for endurance. Matt. 24:10 ff. mentions that many will fall
away, and betray and hate one another. Many will be led astray by false prophets,
and because of the proliferation of wickedness, “‘most men’s love will grow cold.”
D. Hill suggests that the phrase eis te/os means “‘finally’’, ‘“‘without breaking down”,
rather than ‘‘to the end” (op. cit., 321). The use of the noun in LK. recalls the
parable of the sower: “And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing
the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with
patience [en hypomoné]” (Lk. 8:15; cf. Matt. 13:23; Mk. 4:20). But only Lk.’s
version of the parable mentions hypomoné, whereas Matt. and Mk. mention the
superabundance of the yield which Lk. omits. This may be due to the Gentile
orientation of his Gospel. Whereas the parable mentions cares, riches and pleasure
which may prevent fruit from growing, the eschatological discourse has in mind
trials and tribulations. But in both cases patient endurance is the prerequisite: in
the one case for salvation, in the other case for bearing the fruit of the word.
The warning about endurance is also given in identical words in Matt. 10:22 in
the context of the mission charge to the twelve. Here too there is the warning about
773
PATIENCE
being hated by all, and there are eschatological overtones. The blessedness of those
who endure recalls Dan. 12:12: “Blessed is he who waits and comes to the
thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.”
2. Paul. (a) Both the noun and the vb. figure in the argument of Rom. hypomoné
is a quality required of men if their lives are to be pleasing to God: ‘‘to those who
by patience [kath’ hypomonén] in well-doing seek for glory and honour and im-
mortality, he will give eternal life’? (Rom. 2:7). Both the active sense of “‘steady
persistence in well-doing’’ (NEB) and the passive sense of patient endurance under
difficulties are possible here (cf. M. Black, Romans, New Century Bible, 1973, 55 f.).
In Rom. 5 Paul shows how the justified believer can turn even suffering to good
account. He not only rejoices in the “hope of sharing the glory of God” (5:2).
‘““More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings [thlipsesin], knowing that suffering
[thlipsis] produces endurance [hypomonén], and endurance [hypomoné] produces
character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because
God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been
given to us” (5:3 ff.; — Persecution, art. thlipsis). In Rom. 8:25 hope is charac-
terized as waiting for what we do not see with patience (cf. the use of the vb. in
v. 24 y./.). The context here is the travail of the created order “‘as we wait for adop-
tion as sons, the redemption of our bodies”’ (8: 23). “‘For in this hope we were saved.
Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees ? But if we hope
for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience [di’ hypomonés apekdecho-
metha]’ (8:25). Finally, the concept occurs again in the practical exhortations at
the end of Rom. “‘Rejoice in our hope, be patient in tribulation [en thlipsei hypo-
menontes|, be constant in prayer’ (Rom. 12:12f.; cf. the connection between
hypomoné and thlipsis here with 5:3; —» Persecution). The purpose of the scrip-
tures is to promote hypomoné which moreover reflects the very character of God.
“For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by
steadfastness and encouragement of the scriptures [dia tés hypomonés kai dia tés
parakléseds ton graphon| we might have hope. May the God of steadfastness and
encouragement [ho de theos tés hypomonés kai tés parakléseos| grant you to live in
such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you
may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15: 3-6;
note the reiteration of the themes of Rom. 2:7 and 5:3 ff.).
(b) Whereas hypomoné is a characteristic of hope in Rom. it is seen as a character-
istic of love in 1 Cor.: “Love bears all things believes all things, hopes all things,
endures all things [panta hypomenei]” (1 Cor. 13:7). In 2 Cor. Paul develops the
theme of endurance, especially in the service of Christ for the church. “If we are
afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for
your comfort, which you experience, when you patiently endure the same sufferings
that we suffer” (2 Cor. 1:6). 2 Cor. 6:4 and 12:12 allude to Paul’s own apostolic
endurance.
(c) Endurance and patience are qualities for which Paul prays particularly in the
Colossian Christians: ‘““May you be strengthened with all power, according to his
glorious might, for all endurance and patience [eis pasan hypomonén kai makro-
thymian] with joy” (Col. 1:11). In 1 Thess. 1:3 the “steadfastness of hope [hypo-
mones tés elpidos|” of the Thessalonians is a cause for particular thanksgiving, and
and in 2 Thess. 1:4 Paul writes of how he boasts of their steadfastness and hope
774
PATIENCE
in the churches of God. In 2 Thess. 3:5 Paul prays: ‘“‘May the Lord direct your
hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ [eis ten hypomonén tou
Christou]” (cf. Heb. 12:2 f.). “The Thessalonians are being reminded of the con-
stancy exhibited by their Master, which forms the pattern on which they should
model themselves” (L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians,
NLC, 1959, 250).
(d) In the Pastoral Epistles steadfastness is mentioned as a quality required of
Christian workers (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:10) and older men (Tit. 2:2). It is neces-
sary to endure all things for the sake of the elect (2 Tim. 2:10). Moreover, endur-
ance 1s a precondition of reigning (2 Tim. 2:12) as in the saying quoted possibly
from a liturgical or baptismal hymn: “‘The saying is sure: If we have died with
him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we
deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful —for he
cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:11 ff.).
3. The theme of perseverance and falling away is one of the central themes of
Heb. (cf. the quotation of Ps. 95:7-11 in Heb. 3:7—-11, 15 and 4:3-11; and the
argument of ch. 12). Both the vb. (Heb. 10:32; 12:2f., 7) and the noun (Heb.
10:36; 12:1) figure in the exhortations to perseverance. It stands in contrast with
hypostolé, shrinking back (Heb. 10:39). Continued endurance is urged in the light
of past endurance which included the loss of earthly goods (Heb. 10:32, cf. 34),
the need of endurance to “‘do the will of God and receive what is promised”’ (Heb.
10:36), the fact that discipline is evidence of sonship (Heb. 12:7), and the example
of Jesus himself ““who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,
despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God’’ (Heb.
12:2; cf. v. 1; and 2 Thess. 3:5). “Consider him who endured from sinners such
hostility against himself that you may not grow weary or faint-hearted”’ (Heb. 12:3).
4. The noun (Jas. 1:3 f.; 5:11) and the vb. (Jas. 1:12; 5:11) both feature in the
Epistle of James. The réle of steadfastness in producing Christian character in
Jas. 1:3 f. may be compared with Paul’s argument in Rom. 5:3 ff. and 2 Pet. 1:6.
Endurance is necessary to receive the crown of life (Jas. 1:12; cf. Rom. 2:7; 8:25).
Jas. 5:11 holds up the example of Job (cf. Job 1:21 f.; 2:10).
5. 1 Pet. 2:20 contrasts suffering for the sake of Christ with endurance of punish-
ment rightly inflicted for a crime. There is no credit in the latter kind of enduring,
and believers are warned not to render themselves liable for such punishment. In
particular, the context suggests that some Christians thought themselves exempt
from obedience to the state (1 Pet. 2:13—18), whilst some Christian slaves believed
that they were no longer under obligation to their earthly masters. The argument
of the second half of 1 Pet. 2 is that such earthly obligations still hold good, as
they are appointed by God. Moreover, in submitting without reviling believers
have the example of Christ before them (2:21—25). In 2 Pet. 1:6 Aypomoné is twice
mentioned in a list of virtues in a way which recalls Rom. 5:3 ff. and Jas. 1:3 f.
6. In Rev. patient endurance is the lot of John himself in his exile on Patmos
“on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 1:9). The
churches of Ephesus and Thyatira were commended by the Spirit for their patient
endurance (Rev. 2:2 f., 19). Similarly, the church at Philadelphia is encouraged:
‘Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the
hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the
i
PATIENCE/PEACE
earth” (Rev. 3:10). The conflict with the beast (— Animal, art. thérion) gives rise
to the exhortations: “‘Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints”’ (Rev.
13:10); ‘““Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the com-
mandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:12).
U. Falkenroth, C. Brown
—> Faith, - Hope, — Persecution, — Suffer, — Tempt
(a). G. Bornkamm, “‘The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1-3)’, in Early Christian Ex-
perience, 1969, 47-70; F. Buiichsel, elenchd etc., TDNT I 473-76; A. Carr, ‘““‘The Patience of Job’’,
The Expositor, Eighth Series, 6, 1913, 511-17; W. Grundmann, kartereo etc., TDNT III 617-20;
F. Hauck, hypomend, hypomoné, TDNT IV 581-88; J. Horst, makrothymia etc., TDNT IV 374-87;
J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 19637; I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of
Perseverance and Falling Away, 1969; W. Meikle, ‘““The Vocabulary of Patience in the Old Testa-
ment”, The Expositor, Eighth Series, 19, 1920, 219-25; and ‘‘The Vocabulary of Patience in the
New Testament’’, ibid., 304-13; H. Schlier, aneché etc., TDNT I 359 f.; W. Zimmerli, Man and
his Hope in the Old Testament, SBT Second Series 20, 1971.
(b). A. M. Festugiére, “hypomoné dans la Tradition Grecque’’, Recherches de Science Religieuse
30, 1931, 477-86; E. Kasemann, ‘“‘Zum Verstéandnis von Rom. 3, 24-26”, ZNW 43, 1950-S1,
150 ff. (reprinted in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, 1, 1960, 96 ff.); and Das wandernde
Gottesvolk. Eine Untersuchung zum Hebrderbrief, 1957?, 19 ff.; H. Riesenfeld, ““Zu makrothymein
(Lk. 18, 7)”, in Neutestamentliche Aufsdtze, Festschrift fiir J. Schmid, 1963, 214 ff.; C. Spicq,
*‘Patientia”’, Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 19, 1930, 95-106; K. Wennemer,
“Die Geduld in neutestamentlicher Sicht”, Geist und Leben 36, 1963, 36 ff.; S. Wibbing, Die
Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer
Berticksichtigung der Qumran-Texte, BZNW 25, 1959.
Peace
[eta id Elpyvn (eiréné), peace; elpnvev@ (eiréneud), live in peace,
have peace, keep peace; elpnvikdc (eirénikos), peaceable,
peaceful; eipyvonoldc (eirénopoios), peacemaker; eipyvonolé@ (eirénopoied),
make peace.
CL 1. eiréné, peace (from Homer onwards, also in inscriptions and papyri, ety-
mology uncertain), denotes in profane Gk. the antithesis to war, or the con-
dition resulting from a cessation of war. Peace is the state of law and order which
gives rise to the blessings of prosperity.
2.In Plato and Epictetus eiréné can also denote peaceful conduct, though
peaceableness towards others is generally rendered by philia (—> love, friendship)
or homonoia (unity, concord); and a peaceful frame of mind by galéné (calm). Not
until the Stoics (Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius) does peace occur in the sense of
spiritual peace. But even so, the word is not common in their writings, and galéné
is more frequent in Marcus Aurelius (W. Foerster, TDNT II 401). eiréneud (since
Plato, used also in mid.), means to live in peace, to have peace, though in late
writers it can occasionally mean to bring about peace (LXX | Macc. 6:60; Josephus
War 2, 367; Dio Cass. 77, 12, 1; Did. 4, 3; Barn. 19, 12). eirénikos, peaceful,
embraces everything relating to peace (cf. polemikos, bellicose, warlike). The
compounds eirénopoied, to make peace, establish peace (from the LXX onwards)
and eirénopoios, peacemaker, when found in profane Gk., can very infrequently
7716
PEACE
bear the sense of political pacification by force of arms (e.g. by the Roman emperor)
(cf. Lat. pacare, pacify, subdue).
oT 1. (a) In the LXX eiréné is almost invariably used to translate the Heb. sal6m
which occurs more than 250 times in the OT. (Exceptions to this are largely
phrases connected with coming and going, and with greetings, e.g. Gen. 26:31;
43:23: but also Jer. 20:10; Isa. 48:22; 57:21; where sdtéria, chairein, etc. are used.)
The well-being that comes from God is, however, regularly expressed by eiréné (G.
von Rad, TDNT II 402 f.). In some 15 passages eiréné corresponds to various other
Heb. words which embrace the general area of meaning of rest, safety, freedom
from care and trustfulness: Sagat, have rest from (1 Chr. 4:40); betah, trust,
security (Job 11:18; Prov. 3:23; Isa. 14:30; Ezek. 34:27; 38:8, 11, 14; 39:6, 26);
halak, walk (2 Sam. 3:24); legah, understanding (Isa. 29:24); sah, clear (Isa.
32:4); Salwah, ease (Prov. 17:1). It is clear that some of these passages use eiréné
to give an interpretative gloss on the original Heb.
Unlike the Gk. eiréné, the Heb. salém is the opposite not so much of war as of
any disturbance in the communal well-being of the nation, a disturbance which,
of course, may in certain circumstances make it necessary to go to war (cf. 2 Sam.
11:7). Hence in the LXX eiréné too acquires the sense of general well-being, the
source and giver of which is Yahweh alone. Indeed, the Heb. text of Jdg. 6:24
which gives the name of the place of Gideon’s altar means: Yahweh is peace (cf.
RV “Jehovah-shalom’’). sa/6m includes everything given by God in all areas of life
(TDNT II 402). eiréné, therefore, coming as it does from God, approximates
closely to the idea of salvation (sdtéria; - Redemption; cf. Ps. 84:11). When God
withdraws his peace, mourning must inevitably take its place (Jer. 16:5).
(b) Throughout the Heb. OT, Salé6m covers well-being in the widest sense of the
word (Jdg. 19:20); prosperity (Ps. 73:3), even in reference to the godless; bodily
health (Isa. 57:18; Ps. 38:3); contentedness, on departure (Gen. 26:29), on going
to sleep (Ps. 4:8), and at death (Gen. 15:15 etc.); good relations between nations
and men (1 Ki. 5:26; Jdg. 4:17; 1 Chr. 12:17, 18); salvation (Isa. 43:7; Jer. 29:11;
cf. Jer. 14:13). Participation in this peace means sharing in the gifts of salvation
which are involved, while expulsion from it means the end of prosperity (Lam.
3:17). Sal6m has a social dimension, being bound up with the political aspirations
of Israel, and has a public significance far beyond the purely personal. Evidence
of this is found in the close association of §al6m with s*daqah (— Righteousness ;
cf. Isa. 48:18; Ps. 85:10); with the concrete ideas of > law and — judgment
(mispat; Zech. 8:16); and even with public officials (Heb. p°quddah, oversight, care;
LXX archontas and episkopous, rulers and overseers; Isa. 60:17; — Beginning; —
Bishop).
(c) The concept of peace is found at the climax of the blessing in Num. 6:24 ff,
where it sums up all the other blessings and where it is closely associated with the
presence of Yahweh. The blessing is attributed to Moses who is commanded by
Yahweh to transmit this blessing to Aaron and his sons as the form of blessing
with which they are to bless Israel (Num. 6:22 f.). ““The LorpD bless you and keep
you: The LorD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you: The LorD
lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace” (Num. 6:24 ff.). The follow-
ing verse adds: ‘‘So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will
TT7
PEACE
bless them”’ (6:27). J. I. Durham comments: “‘salém is the gift of God, and can be
received only in his PRESENCE. But the use of ‘a/6m in the blessing also lends cre-
dence to the view that ‘além serves as a cultic term and possesses a meaning far
more comprehensive than the one usually given to it in the translations and by
many commentators. For sal6m in Num. 6:24-26 is intended as a description
of the man who is blessed (barak), guarded (Samar) and treated graciously (Adnan)
by God; the man who is doubly in God’s PRESENCE; the man who is ‘fulfilled’,
and so ‘complete’. Indeed has such a man answered the New Testament com-
mandment which is attributed to our Lord: esesthe oun hymeis teleioi hos ho pater
hymon ho ouranios teleios estin [“You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly
Father is perfect’, Matt. 5:48]’’ (“‘salém and the Presence of God’’, in J. I. Durham
and J. R. Porter, eds., Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour
of Gwynne Henton Davies, 1970, 292 f.).
Durham also draws attention to the fact that the LXX uses the adj. feleibs,
perfect, to render the adjs. from stems s/m and tmm, complete (1 Ki. 8:61; 11:4;
15:3, 14; 1 Chr. 28:9; Deut. 18:13; Jer. 13:19; Exod. 12:5; cf. G. Barth in G.
Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew
1963, 98; and Hatch-Redpath, 1342 f. for other cognates of both the Gk. and the
Heb. words). Thus teleios renders one aspect of sal6m not immediately apparent in
eirene.
Durham contends that “‘fal6m is often indicative, in Old Testament usage, of a
comprehensive kind of fulfilment or completion, indeed of a perfection in life and
spirit which quite transcends any success which man alone, even under the best of
circumstances, is able to attain” (op. cit., 280; cf. e.g. Gen. 15:15; 29:6; 37:14;
43:27f.; Exod. 18:7, 23; Num. 25:12; Deut. 23:6[7]; Jdg. 18:15; 1 Sam. 17:18;
22; 20:7; 25:6; 2 Sam. 11:7; 18:28f.; 1 Ki. 22:27f.; 2 Ki. 22:20; Isa. 45:7;
48:18; 53:5; 54:10, 13; 57:2, 19; 59:8; 60:17; 66:12; Mal. 2:5 f.). In particular,
this is illustrated by the promise of Yahweh that Josiah will be gathered to his
fathers not “‘in peace’”’ (so RSV) which was manifestly not the case, but “‘in success”’,
1.e. having achieved his calling (2 Ki. 22:20; cf. op. cit., 279).
Salém is ultimately the gift of Yahweh (Gen. 28:21; 41:16; Lev. 26:6; Jdg. 18:6;
1 Chr. 22:9; cf. 12:19; 23:25). This is a particular theme of the prophets who are
concerned with the proclamation of peace (Isa. 9:5 f.; 26:6, 12; 45:7; 48:18, 22;
52:7; 54:10, 13; 53:5; 55:12; 57:2, 19, 22; 60:17; 66:12; Jer. 14:13; Jer. 6:13;
8:11, 15; 14:13; 23:17; 28:9; 29:11; 33:6, 9; Ezek. 34:25; 37:26; Mic. 5:5[4];
Nah. 2:1[1:15]; Hag. 2:9; Zech. 6:13; 8:10 ff.; 9:10; Mal. 2:5f.). Jeremiah, in
particular, proclaimed that Yahweh also withdraws his sal6m in judgment (Jer.
12:12; 14:19; 16:5; 25:37). The theme of Yahweh as the giver of peace figures
prominently in the Psalms (Pss. 4:8; 29[28]:10f.; 34:15[33:14]; 35[34]:27; 37
[36]:11; 55[54]:18; 73[72]:3; 85[84]:8; 119[118]:165; 122[121]:6 ff.; 125[124]:5;
147:14). It also occurs in Prov. 3:2, 17, 23 and Job 5:24; 15:21; 25:2. Whereas |
all the passages which see Salém as a gift of Yahweh imply a presence of Yahweh,
a number of passages relate Yahweh’s presence to the cult (Gen. 28:10-22; Num.
6:23 f.; Jdg. 18:6; Pss. 4:8 29[28]:10 ff.; 2 Sam. 15:24 ff.).
(d) After the conquest and fall of Jerusalem (597 and 587 B.c.) the promise of
peace became central to the message of the prophets, especially Deutero-Isaiah.
With the destruction of Jerusalem the false prophets of salvation (Jer. 6:14; 8:11;
778
PEACE
Ezek. 13:10, 16) were utterly discredited. In Deutero-Isaiah the divine covenant of
peace (Isa. 54:10) comes to be viewed eschatologically: righteousness, splendour,
salvation and glory (Isa. 62:1, 2) are all expected to be manifest at the end. The
created world, which at present is under God’s righteous judgment for its sin, and
is in conflict with itself, will again be made whole (Isa. 11:6—-9; 29:17—24; 62:1-9),
when God creates new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17-19; cf. Rev. 21:1-4).
The message concerning the renewal of the covenant of peace blossoms into the
promise of the universal and everlasting peace, and the coming of the day of
salvation is frequently linked with the Prince of peace (Isa. 9:5, 6), who as God’s
anointed (Isa. 61:1, 2) is the bringer and founder of the kingdom of peace.
2. (a) In Rab. literature it is the sal6m of Yahweh which underlies the whole
concept of peace (see above | (b)), but it undergoes an enlargement both in the
God-man relationship and on the purely human plane. The phrase for ‘“‘to greet’’,
sa al b°sal6m, meaning to ask after (Someone’s) peace, i.e. to wish it for someone,
turns the act of greeting into something approaching an act of blessing. Salom
and b*rakah (blessing) begin to correspond (TDNT II 409). sal6m becomes the very
essence of that salvation expected by the Jews. It is necessary to pursue such peace
(Rabbi Hillel, Aboth 1: 12; cf. SB I°217), and to establish peace among men.
Among the rabbis the rdle of the peacemaker is similar to that in the NT, and at
this point Rab. Judaism approaches the “new commandment” of the NT (—
Command, art. entolé). The motive-force, however, is not so much positive love
for one’s neighbour, as the desire to get rid of all that would hinder sal6m. What
holds good on the purely human level also applies to the relationship between man
and God. Peace thus gains a new dimension, with greater importance being attached
both to what man does and to what he leaves undone.
(b) Similarly in the Pseudepigrapha, eiréné implies salvation, which certainly
includes the cessation of war, but goes beyond this. In the Test. XII peace means
the withholding of judgment, i.e. sparing the offender out of compassion, or at least
deferring his punishment. While Josephus follows the OT Rab. line completely
(Ant. 1, 179; 11, 216; 8, 405; War 2, 135), in Philo the concept of peace becomes
introverted and signifies peace of mind (Som. 2, 253; Ebr. 97), though this is not
divorced from the external and objectively verifiable state of peace. Under the
influence of Gk. philosophy, Philo also regards inward peace as being victory over
temptation and lust (Jos. 57). Eth.Enoch 52:11 declares: ‘“‘Blessed is he who brings
peace and love.”’
(c) In its separation from apostate Israel (1QS 8:4-9; CD 1:4 and passim) the
Qumran community considered itself to be the eschatological community of the
saved; its members have already entered into the enjoyment of eschatological
peace. There are references to eternal peace (1QS 2:4), the superabundance of
peace (1QS 4:7), peace without end (1QH 7:15), lasting peace (1QH 15:16) and
peace without limit (1QH 18:30). Yet the community is still in the midst of
conflict (Belial against Israel and Michael, CD 4:13 and passim; the sons of light,
1QM 1:11, against the sons of darkness, 1QM 1:9f.). The coming of peace is
bound up with visitation (1QH 1:17); salvation is confirmed only after its recipi-
ents have been tried in the furnace of fire (1QM 17:1). God has already engraved
the covenant of peace (= salvation) for all eternity with the stylus of life (1QM
12:3). Such peace no longer meets with rejection (1QH 9:11), being a present refuge
779
PEACE
replete with the blessings of salvation (1QH 9:33); peace is identical with salvation
(— Redemption, art. s6z0) and with happiness. ‘““The peace of God” (1QM 3:5;
4:14) and “the joy of God’’ (> Joy, art. agalliaomai) are the watchwords of God’s
people upon their safe arrival home (1QM 3:11).
NT eiréné is found 91 times in the NT, 24 of which are in the Gospels. The 4
occurrences in Matt. are confined to the discourse in ch. 10, where Jesus sends
out his twelve disciples (vv. 13, 34); Mk. uses it once (as a valedictory formula,
5:34), and Lk. 13 times. Christ’s farewell discourses in Jn. (chs. 14-16; also ch. 20)
contain the word 5 times, in each case denoting Christ’s gift to his disciples (Jn.
14:27; 16:33; 20:19, 21, 26). Occurrences in the rest of the NT are as follows:
7in Acts; 43 in the Pauline epistles (including 10 in Rom. and 8 in Eph.); 11 in the
Pastoral Epistles, 4 in Heb. and 2 in Rev. On 12 occasions — grace (charis) and
peace are mentioned together as coming from God the Father (apo theou patros).
The vb. eiréneud appears 3 times in Paul; eirénopoios once in Matt. 5:9; and
eirénikos only in Heb. 12:11 and Jas. 3:17. The form predominating in the NT,
therefore, is eiréné itself, always rendered in the Vulg. by pax, except for 1 Pet.
5:14, where gratia is used.
1. It is not possible to trace any development of the idea of eiréné within the NT.
Both in form and content it stands firmly in the LXX and Heb. OT tradition,
though in addition the meanings set out under cL continue to make their influence
felt. Thus, as in cL 1, peace is the opposite of war (Lk. 14:32, an Aramaism; Acts
12:20). In Lk. 11:21 and Acts 24:2 it denotes external security. OT influence is
more apparent in | Cor. 14:33, where peace is the opposite of disorder in the
church. Similarly it is used for harmony among men (Acts 7:26; Gal. 5:22; Eph.
4:3; Jas. 3:18; negatively in Matt. 10:34), and for messianic salvation (Lk. 1:79;
2:14; 19:42). Hence the word can describe both the content and the goal of all
Christian preaching, the message itself being called ‘“‘the gospel of peace” (Eph.
6:15; cf. Acts 10:36; Eph. 2:17). In other words, the biblical concept of peace
(from sal6m) is primarily that of wholeness. This divinely-wrought reality exercises
a mighty influence in the present world, though it still awaits final fulfilment.
Soteriologically, peace is grounded in God’s work of — redemption. Eschatolo-
gically it is a sign of God’s new creation which has already begun. Teleologically
it will be fully realized when the work ofnewcreation is complete. Only in a secondary
sense does peace describe human and divine-human relationships, in which case it
refers to a psychological state consequent upon sharing in the all-embracing peace
of God. On Lk. 2:14 — Please, art. eudoke6é NT 3(c).
2. (a) As opposed to akatastasia, disorder, peace is an order established by
God as the God of peace (1 Cor. 14:33; cf. also Rom. 15:33; 16:20; Phil. 4:9;
1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 13:20). The wide-ranging scope of salvation is shown by the
fact that peace is linked with — love (agapé) in 2 Cor. 13:11; with — grace (charis)
especially in the introductions to the epistles (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2;
Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2
Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Phlm. 3; 1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:2; 2 Jn. 3; Jude 2; Rev. 1:4). It
also features in closing salutations (Rom. 15:33; 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:11; 2 Cor.
13:11; Gal. 6:16; Eph. 6:23, cf. 15; Phil. 4:7, 9; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 3:16;
Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:14; 2 Pet. 3:14; 3 Jn. 15). It is linked with — life (zoé) in
780
PEACE
Rom. 8:6, where it is contrasted with — death (thanatos). Similarly in Jn. 16:33
there is an antithesis between peace and tribulation (thlipsis; — Persecution).
Peace comes from him who is, who was, and who is to come (Rev. 1:4; cf. Heb.
7:2, a reference to — Melchizedek as a type of the king of peace, basileus eirénés).
The Gospel of Jn. insists that this peace differs not only quantitatively but also
qualitatively from that of the world (Jn. 16:33) in that it is given by Christ himself.
Peace in heaven and —> glory (doxa) in the highest (Lk. 19:38) also form part of the
expected salvation. Peace, if it is to exist at all, must be all-embracing.
(b) Christ is the mediator of peace. He brings in the kingdom of God and is the
bearer of reconciliation (Rom. 5:1; Col. 1:20; Lk. 2:14 and 1:79, referring to the
birth of Jesus and John respectively). (On Lk. 2:14 — Man, art. anthropos NT 1; >
Please, art. eudoked NT 3 (c).) Indeed, he himself is peace (Eph. 2:14-18), as is
Yahweh in the OT. While the Gospel of Jn. stresses Christ’s gift of peace to his
disciples (Jn. 14:27), Christ’s missionary discourses make the point that his com-
missioned followers are to pass it on to others. If it is refused by those to whom it is
offered, then it returns to the disciples (Lk. 10:5 f.; Matt. 10:13). The salutation in
profane Gk. chairein kai eiréné (much used at the beginning of letters) is deepened
in the greetings of the Pauline epistles (— Book, art. epistolé NT).
Thus in the NT eiréné is described as the peace of Christ (Col. 3:15) and as the
gift of the Father and the Son (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3 and passim). It is both
obtained and maintained through communion with Christ (Jn. 16:33; Phil. 4:7;
1 Pet. 5:14). The whole process of believers’ sanctification, preservation and per-
fecting (1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 13:20) serves to deepen their participation in the
peace of God, and — Satan, who is constantly trying to hinder this work, will be
crushed by God himself (Rom. 16:20). Peace may, however, go unrecognized
(Lk. 19:42); it may be forgotten and obscured (Rom. 3:12, 17), or refused (Lk.
10:5 f.; Matt. 10:13). In Heb. 13:20, the phrase en panti agatho may be translated
“in every good work’’, or “in all that is good’’. Therefore, it can have either a moral
and ethical meaning, or it can refer to believers’ well-being in the broadest sense
of the term. Similarly, in 2 Thess. 3:16 the phrase dia pantos en panti tropd, every-
where and in all ways, may include all the benefits of peace (well-being, health,
happiness, harmony). But if there is a conflict between these benefits and the peace
of God itself, then they must be surrendered, or else there will be disharmony
instead of peace (Lk. 12:51 ff.). There is no room for false peace. By its very nature
peace is grounded in the righteousness and wholeness which God gives to man for
the sake of Christ and his merits (L7K IV 367).
3. Peace, in the sense of wholeness both for men and the world (2 Cor. 5:17;
Gal. 6:15), brings a newness to human relationships. Hence the injunction: Be at
peace with one another (Mk. 9:50; cf. 2 Cor. 13:11, in association with to auto
Dhroneite, be of one — mind) and with all men wherever possible (see above NT
2 (b)) and so far as it depends upon you (Rom. 12:18). The kingdom of God is
righteousness and peace (Rom. 14:17) in the sense of establishing righteous
harmony among men. The church is upbuilt in peace, and in the > joy of the
Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17, 19). The peace to which the church is called (1 Cor. 7:15)
is the gift of God (see above 2 (b); 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 2), who fills men with it (Rom.
15:13). It is God who causes it to rule in the heart of men and so reign in the
Christian community (Col. 3:15), and manifest itself as the — fruit of the Spirit
781
PEACE
(Gal. 5:22). God in Christ has come preaching peace (euangelizomenos eirénén,
Acts 10:36, quoting Isa. 52:7; cf. also Eph. 2:17; — Gospel).
2 Tim. 2:22 and Heb. 12:14 emphasize that peace in the sense of concord and
harmony is to be pursued not only in the church but among men generally, so far
as is possible (TDNT II 416f.; cf. Eph. 4:3; 1 Pet. 3:11 quoting Ps. 34:15; Jas.
3:18). Matt. 5:9 states the beatitude: ‘““Blessed are the peacemakers [eirénopoioi\,
for they shall be called sons of God.” The word eirénopoios is an adj. meaning
making peace, used only here in the NT as a noun, peacemaker. It is rare in
secular Gk. (e.g. Xen., 6, 3, 4; Cornutus 16 p. 23, 2; Dio Cass., 44, 49, 2; 72, 15,
5; Plut., Mor. 279b; Pollux, 152; Philo, Spec.Leg. 2, 192), where it is applied in
particular to emperors. But in the context of Matt. it is more likely to have a Heb.
background, suggesting what to the Jewish hearer would be implied by Salém. It
may also be related to the saying in Matt. 5:48: ‘“‘You, therefore, must be perfect
[teleioi], as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ With regard to this concept, G. Barth
comments: ‘‘Matthew does not use te/eios in the Greek sense of the perfect ethical
personality, but in the Old Testament sense of the wholeness of consecration to
God, as the close relationship with the use of tamim in 1QS shows. That disciple-
ship itself is ‘perfection’ and not merely the way to it follows above all from the fact
that the necessity of imitation in suffering is not grounded primarily on a goal
envisaged in the future but on belonging to the suffering Son of man” (op. cit.,
101; cf. 1 QS 1:8 f.; 2:3; 4:22; 5:24; 8:1, 9, 18, 20; 9:2, 5f., 8f.,, 19; 11:11, 17;
see above OT | (c)). The disciple who is perfect in the sense of bringing the whole-
ness which comes from God alone and which is intimately bound up with his
presence is one who brings peace in the fullest sense of the term Sa/6m. As such,
he is a son of God fulfilling the destiny and title of Israel (cf. Deut. 14:1; Hos.
1:10; Ps.Sol. 17:30; Wis. 2:13, 18). ““The peacemakers are the true Israel and
acknowledged by God as his children” (T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 1947,
151).
4. The adj. eirénikos occurs only at Heb. 12:11 and Jas. 3:17. In Heb. “the
peaceful fruit of righteousness” is said to spring from — discipline (— also
Patience, art. hypomoné). This leads on to the exhortation to “‘Strive for peace with
all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14),
which is followed by the example of the “immoral and irreligious” Esau (Heb.
12:16; cf. Gen. 25:29-34). Esau’s action in trading his birthright shows a failure
to seek peace and holiness, by allowing a “root of bitterness’ to spring up
(Heb. 12:15; cf. Deut. 29:18 LXX). In Jas. 3:17 eirénikos is also associated with
fruit, but here in particular with wisdom. “But the wisdom from above is first pure,
then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without
uncertainty or insincerity.”
5. The vb. eirénopoieo is found only at Col. 1:20 where it refers to the cosmic
scope of the reconciling death of Christ: “‘For in him all the fullness of God was
pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on
earth or in heaven, making peace [eirénopoiésas| by the blood of the cross.” The
verse is possibly part of a quotation from an early Christian hymn (cf. E. Lohse,
Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia, 1971, 59). The vb. occurs in Prov. 10:10 and
Isa. 27:5. On the idea of cosmic reconciliation see Asc.Isa. 11:23 and Lohse, op.
cit., 60f.; also — Blood; — Reconciliation; — Fullness. The aor. of the Gk.
782
PEACE/PENTECOST
here is better translated as ““having made peace’’, since it refers to the historic event
of the — cross (cf. Col. 2:13 ff.).
6. In at least one passage (Rom. 15:13) peace is to be understood as a power
which, together with — joy, can pervade the whole person: “‘May the God of
hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy
Spirit you may abound in hope” (Rom. 15:13; — Hope; — Fullness, art. p/éro6).
This peace is neither the Stoic’s withdrawal from the world nor a pious flight into
spirituality and mystical contemplation. Itis the joyful assurance of sharing already
the peace of God as one goes through life and looks to eternity.
H. Beck, C. Brown
(a). J. I. Durham, “‘sa/6m and the Presence of God’’, in J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter, eds.,
Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, 1970,
272-92: W. Foerster and G. von Rad, eiréné etc., TDNT II 400-20; H. Gross, ‘“‘Peace’’, EBT II
648-51; J. Pedersen, /srael: Its Life and Culture, III, 1926, 263-335; E. Stauffer, New Testament
Theolagy, 1955, 143-46.
(b). K. Bernhardt, ed., Schalom. Studien zum Glaube und Geschichte Israels. A. Jepsen Zum 70.
Geburtstag, AzTh 46, 1971; E. Biser, Wege des Friedens, 1961; H. Braun, Qumran und des Neue
Testament, 1966; W. Caspari, Vorstellung und Wort “‘Friede’’ im Alten Testament, 1910; J. Comblin,
Theologie des Friedens, 1963; W. Eichrodt, Die Hoffnung des ewigen Friedens im Alten Israel, 1920;
H. Gross, Die Idee des ewigen und allgemeinen Friedens im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament,
1956; W. S. Leeuwen, Eiirené in het NT, 1940; W. Nestle, Der Friedensgedanke in der antiken Welt,
Philologus Supplement 31, 1938; N. Peters, Weltfriede und Propheten, 1917; A. Pujol, ““De Salutione
Apostolorum ‘Gratia vobis et pax’ ”, Verbum Domini 12, 1932, 38-42, 76-82; F. Sauer, Die
Friedensbotschaft der Bibel, 1954; E. Schlick and E. Biser, ‘‘Friede I’, L7K IV 266 ff.; J. J. Stamm
and H. Bietenhard, Der Weltfriede im Alten und Neuen Testament, 1959; O. H. Steck, Friedensvor- |
stellungen im Alten Jerusalem, Psalmen, Jesaja, Deuterojesaja, 1972; E. Vogt, ‘“Pax hominibus
bonae voluntatis”’, Biblica 34, 1953, 427 ff.; H. W. Wolff, Friede ohne Ende. Eine Auslegung von Jes.
7, 1-7 und 9, 1-6, BSt 35, 1962; J. Zingerle,“* Die Weissagungen des Propheten Jesaias (11, 6-8)
vom messianischen Friedensreich’’, ZKT 4, 1880, 651-61.
Pentecost, Feast of
| MEVTINKOOTH | MEVTnNKOOTH (pentékosté), Pentecost.
OT 1. pentécosté is a fem. noun formed from the numeral pentékostos, fiftieth,
which is found in cl. Gk. from Plato onwards. In inscriptions and ostraca hé
pentékosté (meris) is a technical term meaning “‘the fiftieth (part)’’, 1.e. 2%. But
in Jewish and Christian literature the word stands for hé pentékosté hémera, the
fiftieth day, referring to the festival celebrated on the fiftieth day after Passover
(Tob. 2:1; 2 Macc. 12:32; Philo, Decal. 160; Spec.Leg. 2, 176; Josephus, Ant. 3,
252; 13, 252; 14, 337; 17, 254; War 1, 253; 2, 42; 6, 299; — Feast, art. pascha).
In Deut. 16:10 it is the hag Sabu‘ét, the feast of weeks (in rabbinic writings the hag
h*missim yom, the feast of fifty days).
Pentecost was the second great feast of the Jewish year, a harvest festival, when
the first-fruits of the wheat harvest were presented to Yahweh. It was celebrated
seven weeks after the beginning of the barley harvest (hence “Feast of Weeks’’),
50 days after the Passover (hence “‘Pentecost’’). For accounts see Exod. 23:16;
34:22; Lev. 23:15—21; Num. 28:26—31; Deut. 16:9-12; Philo, Spec.Leg. 2, 176-
88; Josephus, Ant. 3, 252 ff.
783
PENTECOST
2. Jewish thinking about Pentecost developed during the period before and
after Jesus.
(a) Pentecost has become the feast of covenant renewal in Jub. 6:17-21 (c. 100
B.C.) and probably also in the Qumran community (J. T. Milik, Ten Years of
Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea, SBT 26, 1959, 117; cf. 1QS 1:16-2:18), an
association already implied in 2 Chr. 15:10—-12 (cf. G. Kretschmar, “‘Himmelfahrt
und Pfingsten’’, Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 66, 1954-55, 226 ff.). This almost
certainly meant a link between Pentecost and the covenant of Sinai in particular:
both Ex. 19:1 and 2 Chr. 15:10 specify “‘the third month” (the month during which
Pentecost was celebrated), and the same link was made by the Samaritans (J. T.
Milik, ibid.).
(b) In Philo the Sinai traditions are themselves developed. The heavenly voice at
Sinai (Exod. 19:16—-19) “‘sounded forth like the breath [ pneuma] through a trumpet”’;
“the flame became articulate speech in the language familiar to the audience’”’
(Decal. 33, 46). However, Philo did not associate the Sinai revelation with Pente-
cost.
(c) In rabbinic Judaism these two developments eventually came together. The
association of Pentecost with the giving of the law becomes explicit (Pes. 68b) and
the words of R. Johanan are frequently quoted (in various forms), that the (one)
voice (at Sinai) divided into (seven voices and these into) seventy languages (so that
all the nations heard in their own language) (cf. SB II 604 f.). The link between
Pentecost and Sinai is not documented before the second century A.D. (SB II 601)
and R. Johanan (died in A.D. 279).
NT 1. The Authenticity of the Pentecost Narrative. In Acts 2:1 Luke dates the giving
of the — Spirit at Pentecost. Has Luke’s account of the first Christian Pentecost
been influenced by these Jewish traditions? Some scholars believe that such tradi-
tions play a primary réle in shaping the narrative of Acts 2:1—13 (cf. E. Zeller,
The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles Critically Examined, 1875, 202 ff. ;
A. Loisy, Les Actes des Apétres, 1920, 184-95; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the
Apostles, 1971, 166-89). However, the thesis cannot be sustained.
(a) Only one of the developments outlined above was already well established
in pre-Christian Judaism — that is, Pentecost as the feast of covenant renewal (see
above 2 (a)). But had Pentecost also become specifically the feast which cele-
brated the law-giving at Sinai? The answer is probably, Yes. The association was
‘inevitable from the time that festivals became also celebrations of Israel’s history
(Passover, cf. Exod. 12:12 f., 17, 23-7, 39; Tabernacles, Lev. 23:43). The dating of
the Sinai revelation to the third month (six to ten weeks after the Passover) must
clearly have suggested the association. The giving of the law at Sinai was the most
important of the covenants. And the custom of reading Exod. 19 at the Feast of
Pentecost was probably already established in the century before Christ (cf. A. R. C.
Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning, 1966, 97 f.; J. C. Kirby, Ephesians,
Baptism and Pentecost, 1968, 90-93).
(b) The Acts 2 tradition is significantly different from the rabbinic legends of
Sinai (one heavenly voice from the mountain, proclaiming the law, in seventy
languages; many human voices, inspired by the Spirit to praise God, in many
languages). The earlier the legend the greater the differences from Acts 2. Philo’s
784
PENTECOST
treatment of Exod. 19 appears to be nothing more than his own (typical) exposition
of a biblical narrative (contrast Heb. 12:19), and the possible point of contact
with Acts 2 are minimal.
(c) The rabbis’ failure or refusal to recognize a link between Pentecost and Sinai
(prior to 2nd century A.D.) is not decisive against the view that the link was already
established before Christ. Their silence may simply reflect their low regard for
Pentecost (it is the only feast to which no tractate is devoted in the Mishnah and
Talmud), which in turn may be due to a reaction on their part against the high
esteem accorded to Pentecost in the “heterodox Judaism’’ of the Essenes and
Samaritans (see above 2 (a)). Similarly the Therapeutae regarded Pentecost as the
chief feast of the year (Philo, Vit.Cont. 65 f.), a view Philo may well have shared
(Spec.Leg. 2, 176 ff.). The Pharisees were also in dispute with the Sadducees on the
dating of Pentecost (Menahoth 10:3).
We may conclude therefore that while Luke was probably aware of an already
established association between Pentecost and the law giving at Sinai, there is no
evidence that this or the more developed Sinai legends present in later rabbinic
writings influenced his narrative in Acts 2. Consequently there is no evidence that
the dating of the outpouring of the Spirit to Pentecost is due to Lucan redaction.
On the contrary, the excitement of the next pilgrim feast day would be a very
likely occasion for the first communal experience of Spirit following Jesus’ resur-
rection. It is quite likely then that the Pentecost dating belongs to the original
tradition underlying Acts 2 (cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 1975, 139-42).
2. Significance of Pentecost for the earliest Christians. (a) Pentecost means first
and foremost the outpouring of the Spirit promised by God for the end-time.
Charismatic and ecstatic manifestations attributed to God’s Spirit were as distinc-
tive and significant a feature of earliest Palestinian Christianity as of later Hellen-
nistic Christianity (cf. e.g. Matt. 3:11 par. Mk. 1:8, Lk. 3:16; Jn. 7:38 f.; Acts 2:38;
6:3 ff.; 8:14-7; 10:44-8; 18-25; 19:1-7; Rom. 8:9, 14 f.; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:8;
Heb. 2:4; 6:5). In particular, Pentecost was seen as the fulfilment of Joel 2:28;
“in the last days” (Acts 2:17) is hardly typical of Lucan eschatology and is there-
fore probably primitive; and the language of Joel 2:28 (“pour out’’) has stamped
itself on early Christian talk of the Spirit (Acts 2:17 f., 33; 10:45; Rom. 5:5;
Tit. 3:6). Acts 20:16 may even indicate that the Jerusalem church observed Pente-
cost as the anniversary of the Spirit’s outpouring (cf. 1 Cor. 16:18; G. Kretschmar,
op. cit., 247-53), though the thesis that Eph. is constructed on the basis of a Pente-
costal renewal of the covenant baptismal liturgy (cf. J. C. Kirby, op. cit.) is built on
too flimsy a foundation. That the first Christian Pentecost was an ecstatic experience
involving vision (sound like wind, tongues as of fire) and glossolalia is clearly
indicated by the tradition in Acts 2:1-13. In addition, the impression that the
glossolalia included recognizable languages may well stem from those whose
conversion to the new sect dated from that occasion (cf. similar claims in modern
Pentecostalism; J. D. G. Dunn, op. cit., 146-52; —> Other, art. allos, heteros NT 2;
— Word, art. glossa).
(b) This first Pentecost resulted in an enthusiastic community, bound together
by common loyalty to the risen and soon coming Jesus and by their common
experience of Spirit (Acts 3:19 f.) — the resurrection of Jesus and the gift of Spirit
both constituting the beginning of the end-time harvest of final resurrection (Rom.
785
PENTECOST
8:23; 1 Cor. 15:20, 23). Otherwise hardly distinct from the rest of Judaism, they
doubtless regarded themselves as constituting eschatological Israel (cf. Matt.
16:18 f.; 19:28; Acts 1:6, 21 f.; J. D. G. Dunn, op. cit., 158-63). The Spirit was
experienced primarily as the prophetic Spirit, in accordance with Jewish expecta-
tion (thus explicitly, Joel 2:28). This was seen as the privilege of all and not the
prerogative of a few (Acts 2:17f., 38 f.). The already established link between
Pentecost, covenant renewal and the giving of the law probably prompted the first
believers to interpret their experience of Spirit as the fulfilment of the promise of a
new — covenant, as the — law written in their hearts (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-4;
Ezek. 36:26 f.; 37:14; cf. Acts 2:38 f.; 3:25; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 10:15 f., 29). But
the implications of this insight for continuing faith and conduct were not recognized
and elaborated until Paul (Rom. 2:28 f.; 7:6; 2 Cor. 3; Gal. 3:1-4:7; Phil. 3:3;
Col. 2:11; 1 Thess. 4:8).
(c) The outpouring of the Spirit was probably attributed to the exalted Jesus
from early on, as is implied by the tradition of the Baptist’s predictions (Matt.
3:11 par. Lk. 3:16; cf. Acts 1:5; 11:16) and by Acts 2:33 (cf. 16:6 f.), perhaps
also by Rom. 8:15 f.; Gal. 4:6; and the “faithful saying” of Tit. 3:5—7. But the
relation between the exalted Jesus and the Spirit does not appear to have been the
subject of much reflection prior to Paul and John. The suggestion that the Acts 2
narrative stems from a variant tradition of the resurrection appearance to “‘more
than five hundred brethren” (E. von Dobschiitz, Ostern und Pfingsten, 1903, 31-43)
can hardly be sustained; the two traditions have no real point of contact. On the
other hand, it is probable that most of the resurrection appearances listed by Paul
in | Cor. 15:5-8 took place after Pentecost (J. D. G. Dunn, op. cit., 142-6).
3. Significance of Pentecost for Luke. (a) In his narrative Luke emphasizes some
of the above points. It is important for Luke that Pentecost is the fulfilment of the
divine promise (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33, 38f.; cf. 2:1; see E. Lohse “Die
Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes,’’
EvTh 13, 1953, 422-36). Thus it is also the fulfilment of covenant promise (2:39;
3:25; 13:23, 32; 26:6), emphasizing the rdle of Pentecost as the institution of the
new — covenant. So too his description of events before and after Pentecost under-
lines that for Luke Pentecost is the birthday of the church (2:38, 41, 42, 43-7).
And for Luke the Spirit of Pentecost is pre-eminently the prophetic Spirit, the
inspirer of speech (Acts 2:4, 18 — note the addition of ‘‘and they shall prophesy”;
4:8, 31; 6:10; 10:46; 13:9; 19:6; — Prophet).
(b) Luke presents Pentecost as the beginning of world mission. The implementa-
tion of the programme of Acts 1:8 awaits Pentecost. Those who bear witness to the
effects of the Spirit’s outpouring and hear the gospel proclaimed by Peter represent
“every nation under heaven” (2:5), while the appended list of nationalities em-
braces a wide sweep of the eastern Mediterranean, though with some odd omissions
(2:9-11). The glossolalia is explicitly identified as the languages spoken by these
foreign Jews (2:4, 6, 8, 11; cf. 1 Cor. 13:1; but contrast 1 Cor. 14:2; — Other, art.
allos, heteros NT 2; — Word, art. gldssa). Finally, Peter’s sermon ends with an open
invitation and offer of the promised Spirit to “‘all that are far off” (2:39).
(c) Luke plays down the eschatological dimension of Pentecost-engendered
enthusiasm. Whereas for the earliest Christians Pentecost was seen as the precursor
of the end (see above 2 (b)), Luke strives to present Pentecost as the beginning of a
786
PENTECOST
whole new epoch of salvation-history. This motif is already implicit in the fact that
Pentecost begins a second volume rather than rounding off the first (cf. Acts 1:1 ff.
with Luke 1|:1-4). But it becomes most explicit in the sharp distinction that Luke
draws between the epoch of Jesus, ended by resurrection appearances and ascen-
sion, and Pentecost, the beginning of the epoch of the Spirit. The two are clearly
separated by the ten day “‘interregnum’”’ when neither risen Jesus nor inspiring
Spirit are in evidence and the election of Matthias has to revert to the old epoch’s
use of lots (Acts 1:26). The “‘last days” of the Spirit (Acts 2:17) seem to stretch
over Luke’s horizon (see J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, SBT Second
Series 15, 1970, 44 ff.).
4. Significance of Pentecost for the Fourth Gospel. Jn. 20:22 may properly be
called “the Johannine Pentecost’, though not because John is contesting the Lucan
dating of the outpouring of the Spirit, but rather because he wishes to bring out
other aspects of theological significance (J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit,
173-82).
(a) In particular John wishes to emphasize that the gift of the Spirit is not to be
separated from the event of Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension; it is the
immediate and direct result and consequence of Jesus’ “‘glorification”’ and “‘ascend-
ing” (6:62 f.; 19:30; cf. 3:3 with 3:13, and 19:34 with 7:38 f.).
(b) So too John wishes to affirm the immediate continuity between Jesus and the
Spirit (contrast Luke, see above 3 (c)). The Spirit is the other Paraclete (14:16 f.)
whose coming fulfils Jesus’ promise to return and dwell in his disciples (14:18—24;
—> Advocate). The Spirit given by the ascended Jesus constitutes the body and
blood of Jesus, that is, gives the believer share in the life of the risen, glorified
Christ (6:62 f.; 4:14).
(c) John brings out the epochal significance of the Pentecostal Spirit even more
clearly than Luke by his use of the word enephysésen (‘‘breathed’’) in 20:22.
Clearly echoing the use of the same word in Gen. 2:7, Ezek. 37:9 and Wisd. 15:11,
John thereby presents the act of Jesus as a new creation.
(d) Finally, the earlier emphasis on mission is retained by bracketing 20:22 with
vv. 21 and 23; — forgiveness or retention of sins is a charismatic authority and
part of Pentecostal mission; “‘the disciples’? thereby commissioned are not “‘the
twelve” or “‘the apostles’? (never in John) but those gathered round Jesus during
his passion (including women) who represent all who believe in Jesus (7:37 ff.).
-> Feast, — Gift, — Pour, — Spirit J. D. G. Dunn
(a). H. R. Boer, Pentecost and Missions, 1961; J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-
examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in relation to Pentecostalism
today, SBT Second Series 15, 1970, 38-54, 173-82; and Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religi-
ous Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament,
1975, 135—56 (see also the bibliography, 457-75); S. M. Gilmour, ‘‘Easter and Pentecost’’, JBL 81,
1962, 62-6; J. H. E. Hull, The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles, 1967, 49-86; J. C. Kirby,
Ephesians, Baptism and Pentecost: An Inquiry into the Structure and Purpose of the Epistle to the
Ephesians, 1968; K. Lake, ‘““The Gift of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost’’, in F. J. Foakes
Jackson and K. Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles, V, 1933,
111-21; C. S. Mann, ‘“‘Pentecost in Acts” in J. Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible,
1967, 271-75; B. M. Metzger, ‘“‘Ancient Astrological Geography and Acts 2:9-11’’, in W. W.
Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays
Presented to F. F. Bruce, 1970, 123-33; C. A. A. Scott. ““What Happened at Pentecost’’, in B. H.
787
PENTECOST/PEOPLE
Streeter, ed., The Spirit, 1919, 117-57; C. F. Sleeper, “‘Pentecost and Resurrection’’, JBL 84, 1965,
189-99; H. J. Wotherspoon, What Happened at Pentecost ?, 1937.
(b). N. Adler, Das erste christliche Pfingstfest, 1938; A. Cassien, La Pentecéte Johannique, 1939; E.
von Dobschiitz, Ostern und Pfingsten, 1903; J. Dupont, ‘‘La premiere Pentecéte chrétienne (Act.
2.1-11)”, Etudes sur les Actes des Ap6tres, 1967, 481-502; K. Haacker, ‘““Das Pfingstwunder als exe-
getisches Problem’’, in O. Bocher und K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas. Festschrift fiir Gustav
Stahlin, 1970, 125-32; J. Kremer, Pfingstbericht und Pfingstgeschehen, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien
63-64, 1973; G. Kretschmar, ‘‘Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten’’, Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte 66,
1954-55, 209-53; E. Lohse, ‘“‘Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes 1m Rahmen des lukanischen
Geschichtswerkes’’, EvTh 13, 1953, 422-36; and pentékosté, TDNT VI 44-53; K. L. Schmidt, Die
Pfingsterzahlung und das Pfingstereignis, 1919.
People, Nation, Gentiles, Crowd, City
The term people signifies a group of human beings who belong closely together
because of a common history and a common country. In Gk. this concept is
expressed most comprehensively and most frequently by the word ethnos. laos,
on the other hand, is a term originating in the military sphere, and retains an
archaic, political connotation. démos connotes the public nature of the people’s
assembly, while ochlos is the word for the crowd, the mass, the populace. polis
has a definitely political character, signifying a community which lives together
under a legal constitution, the city state.
The LXX and the NT have reserved for the old or new people of God the rarely
used and not so precisely defined term /Jaos, while other (pagan) peoples are
generally called ethnikoi or ethné (plur.). It may well be significant that the chief
concept of Gk. political understanding, the polis, has only a peripheral place in the
NT.
OA Onpoc (démos), people, populace, crowd, popular
| MMOS | assembly; ékdnuém@ (ekdémeod), leave one’s country,
emigrate, take a long journey; évdnuéw (endémed), be at home; mapenidnuos
(parepidémos), foreigner, sojourner, stranger; Onudaloc (démosios), public.
CL 1. démos is derived from the root dai-, divide, and means originally, divided
land, then district, province, subdivision of a people. But chiefly it means the
people, popular assembly, commons, population. The word is used to refer to the
people in contrast to the king, the nobility, or the men of power and landowners.
In this kind of context it can have a derogatory sense. “‘But it can also have a
proud ring, as in Athens, where it is used for the free, self-governing citizens”’
(W. Grundmann, TDNT II 63). In the Hellenistic period the term appears to have
diminished in importance. This is connected with the general cultural development.
Against the imperialism and expansionism of the Hellenistic and Roman empires,
démos, like — polis, fell into the background.
2. Derived from démos are the vbs. endémed, to be in the homeland, at home, in
the country, and ekdémeo (from ekdémos), to go abroad, go out of the country,
travel. The latter is attested in Plato (Leg. 9, 864e; 12, 952d) and Hdt. (1, 30).
endémeo is not common until later (Plutarch, De Genio Socratis 6). A late form is
parepidémos (Polybius, 32, 6, 4), signifying a person who lives with another people
in their lands. (For further examples see TDNT II 63 f.)
788 |
PEOPLE
oT In the LXX the word démos is found about 100 times, chiefly to translate
mispahah, family, clan, 1.e. a smaller grouping within the whole people or tribe.
démos is used about 50 times in Num. 3-4 and 26, and frequently also in Jos.
(especially chapter 21). Other places where it is found are Jdg., Dan., | and 2
Macc. The word is not used in the prophets. In Jdg. 13:2 the tribe of Dan is called
a miSpahdh, and the LXX consistently translates this by démos. In Dan. 8:24;
9:16 démos translates ‘am, people. In | and 2 Macc. there are a number of references
to the démos ton Ioudaidn, people of the Jews (1 Macc. 8:29; 12:6; 14:20-25;
15:17; 2 Macc. 11:34), a manner of description which in these writings can also
be used of other peoples. The compounds are not found in the LXX, except for
parepidemos in Gen. 23:4 and Ps. 39:12 for Heb. t6sab, sojourner.
NT 1. In the NT démos appears just 4 times in Acts. In Acts 12:22 it refers to the
pagan people who were present at the audience which Agrippa I gave to the
representatives of Tyre and Sidon, and who flattered him in a blasphemous fashion.
In Acts 17:5 itis uncertain whether the popular assembly is meant (W. M. Ramsay,
St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1903’, 228), before which the apostles
are to be brought in Thessalonica, or simply the throng of people who are present
(E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 507). In Acts 19:30, 33, it is clearly
the crowd that is meant, and not an assembly called according to the legal provi-
sions, as v. 39 demonstrates; démos is parallel to — ochlos (v. 33).
2. ekdémeo, to be out of the country, abroad, and endémed, to be in the home-
land, at home, in the land, are found in the NT only in 2 Cor. 5:6~9, where each
is used three times.
Paul longs for the fulfilment of Christ’s work and his parousia (2 Cor. 4:18;
5:10), when according to | Cor. 15:43 f., 48-53 he will receive a new — body.
Now he contrasts here two realms of existence, or kinds of life, with one another:
the this-worldly, present, earthly life, and the other-worldly, future, heavenly.
In the present time he, like all men, has an earthly body: endémountes en t6 somati,
‘“‘we are at home in the body.” That means, however, at the same time that he is
not living with Christ, in the other-worldly, heavenly sphere of existence. He is thus
‘“‘“away from the Lord [ekdémountes apo tou kyriou]’’; he is as it were abroad, not
among his own démos to which he belongs. The clear and visible evidence of this
is the earthly body in which he lives. Only in faith, whichis a gift of God, a guaran-
tee (2 Cor. 5:5) of the world to come, can the gap between this world and that — or
the present and the future — be bridged, and even then not visibly (v. 7). For this
reason there grows out of faith the desire and longing to be with Christ and to
enjoy full fellowship with him. This is possible only when one leaves this body,
when one goes away from the body (ekdémésai ek tou sOmatos) and comes to
Christ, to be at home with the Lord (endémésai pros ton kyrion, v. 8). Then the
Christian will live in full fellowship with the Lord. The present is therefore marked
by the combination of “not yet” and “but already”’: the Christian is not yet perfect,
not yet with Christ, but he lives by faith in the certain hope that the consummation
will come, when he will be united with Christ. Always, however, whether in the
future when at home with the Lord (eite endémountes) or in the present earthly life,
away from home (eite ekdémountes), Paul strives to be pleasing to Christ (v. 9).
From a stylistic point of view it is interesting to note how Paul plays throughout
789
PEOPLE
this passage on the vbs. endémed and ekdémeo and their reference to the present
and future.
3. apodémeo, to go out of the country, to travel, is found 6 times in the NT, allin
synoptic parables. Matt. 21:33 par. Mk. 12:1, Lk. 20:9 tell of a man (Matt. calls
him a householder, oikodespotés) who let out his vineyard to tenants and went out
of the country (on this parable see J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament,
1970, 286-312). In the parable of the talents the man who is about to go out of the
country (apodémon) gives his property to his servants to manage (Matt. 25:14),
and goes away (apedémésen, v. 15) (on the parable see J. D. M. Derrett, op. cit.,
17-31). In the parable of the prodigal son the younger son took his share of the
inheritance and made a journey (apedémésen, Lk. 15:13) into a far country. In the
parables of the wicked husbandmen and the talents apodéme6é represents God’s
absence and the fact that he has given his people an autonomy and responsibility
of which they shall have to give account. In the parable of the prodigal son it
represents the action of the son is going away from God. In the context of Lk. 15:1
it characterizes the kind of life led by the ‘“‘tax collectors and sinners” who “‘were
all drawing near to hear him.”
4. The word parepidémos, foreigner, sojourner, which is derived from parepi-
démeo, to stay for a short time in a strange place, occurs 3 times in the NT (1 Pet.
1:1; 2:11, Heb. 11:13; — Foreign, art. parepidémos). |
5. démosios means public, i.e. belonging to the state (Acts 5:18). In the dat.
form démosia it is used as an adv., publicly (Acts 16:37; 18:28; 20:20).
H. Bietenhard
Oy &Ovoc (ethnos), nation, people, heathen, pagans, Gentiles;
| vos EO9vikdc (ethnikos), heathen, Gentile; €Ovix@c (ethnikos),
like the Gentiles.
CL ethnos, derived from ethos, custom, habit, means a group whichis held together
by customs, a clan; then, crowd, company, people. The word came to be used
in the derogatory sense of common people. ethnos is especially used to mean
foreigners, in contrast to the > Greek who is a Hellene (Aristotle, Pol. 1324b, 10).
This gives ethnos a derogatory undertone, which approaches barbaros, non-Greek,
barbarian. Later ethnos was used to describe subject peoples.
OT 1. ethnos appears in the LXX about 1000 timcs (mostly in plur.), and in the
overwhelming majority of cases it stands for the Heb. géy and the plur. goyim,
though in something over 130 cases for ‘am (— laos). The various other Heb.
words which are translated ethnos are by comparison unimportant. Where mention
is made of many peoples, particularly when they are non-Israelite, the plur.
‘ammim is also translated ethné, not laoi (Exod. 19:5 f.). There is thus a contrast
between ‘am or — laos, 1.e. Israel as the chosen people, and géyim or ethné, the
Gentiles. The Eng. Gentile derives from the Lat. gens, nation, which was used in the
Vulg., and means of or pertaining to any or all the nations other than the Jewish
nation. ethné appears relatively seldom in Exod., Lev., Num., Jos., and Chr., and
much more frequently in Gen., Deut., Pss., and the prophets.
790
PEOPLE
2. Israel is the people for God’s own possession (Exod. 19:5), while the rest of
mankind outside — Israel are called the ethné, the nations (Deut. 4:27; 18:9). A
typical passage is Exod. 33:13, where ethnos is the multitude which by Yahweh’s
grace becomes his people (—» /aos). The contrast is just as stark in Deut. 7:6.
Yahweh has separated the ethné over the earth and fixed their bounds according
to the number of the angels of God (angelon theou, LXX, followed in RSV and
confirmed by a Hebrew fragment of Deut. 32 from Qumran; but the MT has
b’né yisra’él, sons of Israel). But Jacob as Yahweh’s portion has become the
laos of God (Deut. 32:8 f. LXX). On the other hand, Yahweh is certainly seen as
King over the nations (Jer. 10:7). This is the point behind Gen. 10, where the
thought is not of a uniform humanity sprung from the earliest patriarchs, but of ‘‘a
group of nations divided according to clans and differing in language, custom and
situation’ (G. Bertram, 7 DNT II 367).
The Gentiles are first Israel’s neighbours, some of whom live in Palestine itself
(Jdg. 3:1). They entice Israel into idolatry, and so to — fall away from Yahweh.
Thus we often read of the “abominations of the Gentiles” (e.g. 1 Ki. 14:24; 2 Ki.
16:3). In the face of Israel’s sin, the nations can often become the means and
instruments of God’s wrath and judgment (Hos. 8:10; Amos 9:9). But if they
over-reach themselves and go beyond the commission given them by Yahweh,
they incur judgment themselves (Isa. 8:9; 10:5). The break-up of the state is a
punishment for the falling away of the people into heathen practices (1 Ki. 11:1 ff. y
2 Ki. 17: 7-23). On the other hand, the Gentile Cyrus can be called God’s anointed
and become the saviour of Israel (Isa. 45:1 ff.). A universalizing tendency in the
LXX may be detected in the fact that in Dan. 9:6 LXX the prophets are said to
have reached to every people on earth. Over against the world empires there stands
the kingdom of God (Dan. 4:34). In the end time the nations will come to Mount
Zion and there share in salvation (cf. Isa. 2:2—4; 25:6-8; Mic. 4:1-3; Zech. 8:20—
23). The nations await the messiah (Gen. 49:10 LXX). Thus the negative evaluation
of the Gentile world is, in the last analysis, not lasting and permanent. Even in the
present the name of Yahweh is to be glorified among all the Gentiles (Ps. 18:49;
46:10). Dan., Est. and Macc. tell of the troubles of the righteous under the domina-
tion of the Gentiles.
3. (a) Judaism. In Jub. 10:22 the origin of the nations is traced to human sin
(cf. Gen. 11), whereas in 2 Esd. 3:7, 12 they are said to have arisen naturally
(though after the fall), because God gave man the blessing of fertility.
(b) In the view of Rabbinic Judaism, the non-Israelite géy is a stranger to God
and far from him, counting for nothing. The Gentiles are themselves to blame for
this state of affairs: they too were offered the Torah, but rejected God’s instruction.
They are, therefore, condemned to the judgment of — hell, without hope of salva-
tion, and have no part in the world to come. Only in very exceptional cases 1s a
share in the perfect world to come promised to pious Gentiles. The basic concep-
tion is formulated in this way: ““Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai said: God spake to the
Israelites: I am God over all men who come into the world, but my name I have
joined only to you; I am called not the God of the nations of the world, but the
God of Israel’’ (Exod. R. 29, 88d; cf. SB III 185). In the other words, God is the
creator of all, but he loves Israel alone.
As individuals, Gentiles have been given up to every possible vice (idolatry,
791
PEOPLE
immorality). In Jewish eyes the Gentiles were unclean: they themselves, their
wives and children, their houses and lands (SB I 540, 571; II 838; IV 374 f.). If in
an exceptional instance they do something good, God rewards them at once, in
in order to avoid having to reward them in the world to come. The punishment
for their sins is delayed by God until the measure is full; then judgment falls upon
them. In contrast to Israel, the Gentile world has no eternal existence. The great
turning-point will be the messianic age: then the nations who have made Israel
their subjects (especially Rome!) will be destroyed by the messiah and finish up in
hell. Other nations who have had no contact with Israel will be subjected to the
messiah who will thus become ruler of the world. As far as religion is concerned,
in the view of one universalistic school of thought, the Gentiles will then be given
access to the blessings of Israel’s salvation. The messiah is the — light of the Gen-
tiles, who will flock around him; he will save all Gentiles who call on God, and
many of them will join themselves to Israel as proselytes.
The political catastrophes of the years A.D. 66-70 and 132-135 created great
bitterness among the Jews. The view arose that in the messianic age there would
be no more proselytes. Only a person who joins himself to Israel during the time of
his sufferings can be a proselyte. Nevertheless, the messiah will lay upon the na-
tions thirty commandments, in order that they may become as much like Israel as
possible. But they remain Gentiles, and in the final onslaught of the nations (Gog
and Magog) they will join in the attack upon Israel (SB III 120 f., 139-42, 144-55).
(c) Jewish missionary activity and proselytism. In the pre-Christian era and up to
A.D. 70 the Jews, particularly the Hellenistic Jews, carried out a strong propaganda
and missionary activity or, to be more precise, proselytism (cf. Philo, Vit.Mos. 2,
4,7). Matt. 23:15 indicates that this was also true of the Palestinian Jews. Josephus
(cf. Ap. 2, 10, 36), Seneca, Dio Cassius and others bear witness to the great success
of this propaganda (cf. also the many half or full proselytes whom Paul met,
according to Acts, in the Jewish Diaspora; —> Conversion, art. prosélytos). A
spectacular conversion was that of the royal house of Adiabene (in northern Iraq)
to Judaism around A.D. 44 (Josephus, Ant. 20, 2, 4), which was won over by a
Palestinian Jew by the name of Eleazar. The number of Jews in the Roman Empire
was as a result of this propaganda disproportionately high, viz. some 6-8% of the
population.
The position changed after A.D. 70 and A.D. 135, and from then onwards the
making of proselytes declined greatly. Those who wanted to become proselytes
had to come of their own initiative, though they were received in a friendly manner.
An added difficulty arose in A.D. 135, when the emperor Hadrian forbade people
to become Jews. It was at this point that the Christians got their great opportunity,
for their Jewish rivals were disqualified. Even so, the church was not always clearly
distinguished from Judaism (cf. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the
Early Church, 1965, 225-8).
(d) Qumran. The linguistic usage of the Qumran writings is not completely
consistent. Usually the nations are called géy or géyim, but occasionally also ‘am,
‘ammim. In each case the context in which the word is used must be studied with
care. The attitude to Gentiles is completely negative. The Gentile nations are idol-
worshippers, without God (1QpHab 12:13; 13:3 f.) and enemies of God (1QM
12:11). God commits the judgment of all nations into the hands of his chosen ones
792
PEOPLE
(1QpHab 5:4). The War Scroll depicts a great forty-years war in the end time which
is directed against all Gentile nations, and in which they will be destroyed (1QM
1:1-7; 2:10-15 and passim). In this way the nations will reap the reward of their
wickedness (1QM 6:6). Emphasis is given to the fact that it will be the Qumran
people themselves, the “‘sons of light”, who will carry out this work of punishment
and destruction (1QM 11:8f.; 14:7). No foreigner or stranger will enter the eschato-
logical temple (1 Qflor 1:4); but the riches of the nations will be brought in through
the gates of Jerusalem (1QM 12:14; 19:6; cf. Isa. 60:3, 5 and in the NT Rev.
21:24).
For the present comfort may be taken from the knowledge that God will not
allow his people (‘am) to be destroyed by the hand of the nations (géyim, 1QpHab
5:3). A somewhat different note is struck in 1QH 6:12 f.: “‘All the nations [géyim]
shall acknowledge Thy Truth, and all the peoples [/*‘ummim] Thy glory. For Thou
wilt bring Thy glorious [salvation] to all the men of Thy Council, to those who
share a common lot with the Angels of the Face.”
NT In the NT ethnos occurs 162 times, including 43 in Acts and 54 in the Pauline
letters. It is used about 40 times in quotations from the OT. The ethné mean
all peoples, as is often made clear by the epithet panta, all (cf. Matt. 24:9; 28:19;
Mk. 11:17; Lk. 21:24; Rom. 15:11).
1. (a) Even the Jewish people can be called ethnos (in 14 places, e.g. Lk. 7:5;
23:2; Acts 10:22). In the NT it no longer has as matter of course the meaning which
overwhelmingly predominates in the OT, i.e. > /aos. The context or qualifying
phrases makes it clear in each of these cases that the reference is to Jews. In other
places, however, (e.g. Acts 26:23) a clear distinction is drawn between — /aos,
the people of — Israel, and the ethné or Gentiles. John’s Gospel in particular calls
Israel ethnos, because he sets himself against faith in Jesus Christ (Jn. 11:48, 50 ff.;
18:35).
(b) ethné clearly refers to Gentiles in Matt. 4:15 (cf. Isa. 8:23); 20:25; Lk.
21:24; Acts 4:25 (cf. Ps. 2:1 f.); 7:7; 13:19; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 3:8 (the reference to
Abraham makes it clear that Gentile nations are meant); Rev. 10:11; 14:8;
15:3 f.
2. In about 100 instances ethnos is used in contrast to Jews and Christians. The
disciples of Jesus are told to pray differently from the ethné (Matt. 6:32), and not
to be anxious like them (Lk. 12:30). Gentiles are mentioned alongside — Samari-
tans (Matt. 10:5). Jesus teaches the future salvation of the Gentiles, although he
was sent only to the Jews (Matt. 8:10 f.; 15:24). In the judgment which will come
upon — Jerusalem the Gentiles will tread it down until the times of the Gentiles
are fulfilled (Lk. 21:24). One of the horrors of the end-time will be the rising of
nation against nation (Matt. 24:7 par. Mk. 13:8, Lk. 21:10).
3. The distinction between Jews and Gentiles is spoken of chiefly in Acts and the
epistles, i.e. in the missionary documents of the NT. God is not the God of the
Jews only, but also of the Gentiles (Rom. 3:29; Rev. 15:3), but the Gentiles do
not know God (1 Thess. 4:5) and are led astray to idols (1 Cor. 12:2). They do
not know the — law of God and do not keep it (Gal. 2:15); they live in the futility
of their minds (Acts 14:16; Eph. 4:17). Although the word ethnos is not used, the
Gentiles are meant in Rom. 1:18-32, where Paul speaks of men who do not know
793
PEOPLE
God, have fallen into idolatry, and have therefore been given up by God to all
kinds of evil. Nevertheless, there are ethné who fulfil the requirements of the law
(Rom. 2:14 f.; — God, art. theos NT 4 (b)). The Gentiles begin life outside the —
call of God and outside the salvation of God’s people (Eph. 2:11 f.). Jews and
Gentiles are alike in rejecting the cross (1 Cor. 1:23).
4. Occasionally Paul can call Gentile Christians simply ethné (Rom. 11:13;
Gal. 2:12; cf. also Eph. 3:1), although the ethné usually stand in contrast to the
Christians (1 Cor. 5:1; 12:2; 1 Pet. 2:12).
5. (a) There is a soteriological distinction and contrast between Jews and Gentiles:
Israel is the people whom God has appointed for his own — possession and his
service. The Gentiles are outside this unique relationship. By God’s own act,
however, the difference has been overcome: the messiah has come in the person of
Jesus, and now even those born Gentiles have a share in God’s — covenant and
salvation. (This is in keeping with universalistic thinking in contemporary Judaism.)
Thus Peter discovers that the God-fearing Gentile is acceptable to God, so that the
Holy — Spirit can come upon him, and Gentiles accept the gospel (Acts 10:35, 45;
11:1, 18; cf. Eph. 2:11 f., 17-22). In 1 Thess. 4:13; 5:6; Eph. 2:3 (cf. Rev. 9:20)
hoi loipoi, ‘‘the rest”, is practically a synonym for ta ethné, “the Gentiles’’ (cf.
F. M. Chase, The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, 1895, 93; M. Black, An Aramaic
Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 1967°%, 176).
(b) Paul is in a special way the apostle of the Gentiles, in the face of opposition
from the Jews (1 Thess. 2:16). To him has been entrusted the mystery (— Secret)
that the Gentiles are called to Jesus Christ apart from the law (Gal. 1:16; 2:7-9;
Rom. 1:5; cf. Eph. 3:1-13). This is not to say that Paul in any way denies the prior
claim of the Jews. Rather, he strongly emphasizes it. Israel is and remains God’s
people, and therefore is in possession of all the gifts and titles which mark it out as
different (Rom. 9:4 f.). The relationship of Jews to Gentiles is given fundamental
treatment in Rom. 9-11 (cf. also Eph. 2 f.). The Gentiles who have come to faith
in Jesus Christ have been grafted into the rich olive tree (Rom. 11:17; — Oil, art.
elaion), and are supported by it. Hence, there can be no division between Christians
and Gentiles. The Pauline churches consist both of born Jews and. born Gentiles,
and both belong to the people of God by faith in Jesus Christ. They are children of
of Abraham by virtue of their faith (Rom. 4:16f., cf. Gen. 17:5; Gal. 3:7, cf.
Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3:13 f., 26-29). Gentiles, who have not pursued righteousness,
have become recipients of the righteousness which comes by faith (Rom. 9:30).
Salvation has come to them through the fall and unbelief of Israel (Rom. 11:11),
and the failure of the Jews has meant riches for the Gentiles (Rom. 11:12). As the
apostle to the Gentiles, Paul is seeking to save as many of the Gentiles as possible,
in order ultimately to win the Jews for the gospel (Rom. 11:13 f.; cf. 10:19 where
Deut. 32:21 is cited). When the full number of the Gentiles has come in, Israel
too will turn to Christ (Rom. 11:11 f., 25). The Gentiles are no longer strangers
(— Foreign, art. xenos) and sojourners (— Foreign, art. parepidémos), but fellow
citizens (sympolitai) and members (oikeioi) of the household of God (Eph.
2:19).
(c) Evidence of the priority of the Jews is apparent in the record of Acts, where
Paul preaches to the Gentiles only after the Jews have rejected the gospel (Acts
13:46; 18:6; 19:9). The question of the mission to the Gentiles, as carried out by
794
PEOPLE
Paul, is discussed and settled at the so-called Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
The Jews accuse Paul of teaching the Jews of the Diaspora (those who live among
the ethné) to forsake Moses (Acts 21:21).
6. According to Revelation, Christ has ransomed a church for himself out of
every nation, and has made them his > kingdom and — priests (Rev. 5:9 f.,
following Exod. 19:6). Along with the chosen of Israel is an innumerable multitude
from the Gentiles (Rev. 7:9). The exalted Christ will rule the nations with a rod of
iron (Rev. 12:5; + Crown, art. rhabdos;—» Gold, art. sidéros), and also gives
authority to ‘““him who conquers’ to do so (Rev. 2:26 f.). He will smite them with
the sword in his mouth (Rev. 19:15). In the time of the two witnesses, the temple
court is given over to the Gentiles (Rev. 11:2). All nations will see the dead bodies
of the two witnesses (Rev. 11:9). The beast has authority over all nations and
peoples, whose name is not written in the book of life (Rev. 13:7 f.; — Animal).
The eternal gospel will be preached to all nations (Rev. 14:6). As for the harlot —
Babylon, all nations have drunk ‘“‘the wine of her impure passion’”’ and have been
deceived by her sorcery (Rev. 14:8; 18:3, 23). In the judgments of God, the cities
of the Gentiles will fall (Rev. 16:19). During the millennium Satan is unable to
deceive the nations (Rev. 20:3; — Number, art. chilias), but does so again as soon
as he is freed (Rev. 20:8). In God’s new world the ethné walk in the light of the
new — Jerusalem, and bring their treasures into the new city (Rev. 21:24, 26).
7. ethnikos (adv. ethnikos) means national, foreign, like a Gentile; and as a
noun, Gentile. The word does not occur in the LXX;; the adj. appears only 5 times
times in the NT, and the adv. once. The Gentile salutes only his brothers; if any
of Jesus’ disciples behave in the same way, he makes himself like an ethnikos
(Matt. 5:47). In prayer the disciple is not to heap up empty phrases (battaloge6)
like the Gentiles (Matt. 6:7). M. Black suggests Gentiles here might represent an
Aramaic phrase meaning “‘the rest of men’’, i.e. those who were not Jesus’ disciples
(cf. the Bezan text of Lk. 11:2; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and
Acts, 1967°, 176 ff.). He who refuses to listen to a rebuke by the church thereby
cuts himself off and joins the Gentiles and unrepentant tax-collectors (Matt. 18:17;
—> Bind; — Open). In Antioch Peter had eaten with Gentile Christians and so
transgressed the Jewish ritual regulations, thus living ethnikds, like the Gentiles;
Paul argues that he therefore can no longer force the Gentile Christians to observe
the law (Gal. 2:14). For membership of the Jewish people, determined by the law,
has now been superseded by the fellowship of faith in Christ, which unites Jewish
and Gentile Christians. H. Bietenhard
| AQOC | Aadc (laos), people.
CL laos (etymology of /aos is uncertain; perhaps a foreign word) is a Doric and
Aeolic form (Ionic /éos; Attic /eds). In Homer it means a number of men, a
crowd (e.g. //. 18, 497 ff.; 24, 665), and more specifically an army, a military
company, men at arms, troops (e.g. //. 1, 226; 9, 424; 10, 14). At a later period this
meaning disappeared, and the word meant the common people, folk, population;
in the plur., the multitude of individuals out of whom the people is made up (cf.
795
PEOPLE
—» Church, art. ekklésia; gahdal in the OT). In addition to epic poetry (e.g. Od. 3,
214), the word is found in Hdt. (e.g. 8, 136), Pindar (e.g. Pythian Odes 9, 54 f.),
the tragedians (e.g. Aesch. Persae 770) and Aristophanes (e.g. Ranae 676). But it is
almost entirely lacking in Attic prose. It retains an archaic and solemn, poetic tone
(even in Josephus, Ant. 4, 114).
oT 1. In the LXX the word occurs about 2,000 times, with a new meaning which
brought it renewed life. The plur. (not quite 140 times) always means nations,
and so is synonymous with > ethné (cf. Ezek. 23:24, — ochlos ladon, a host of
peoples, with Ezek. 31:12; laoi tén ethnon, the individual nations of the Gentile
world, Ez. 9:11 LXX). In this expression /aos could be interpreted as a group
deliberately formed, and ethnos as a natural grouping bound by clan ties and a
common descent.
laos often means the people, in contrast to the ruler or ruling class (cf. Gen.
41:40; 47:21; Exod. 1:22; Jer. 23:34), such as the inhabitants of a city (Gen.
at the members of a tribe (Gen. 49:16), the people who accompanied Esau
and the servants of Jacob (Gen. 33:15; 32:8; 35:6). Even the dead belong to it
(Gen. 25:8; 49:33). These passages are not, however, typical for the LXX usage
of the word.
2. To the translators of the LXX the term /aos, derived from the language of
high style and ceremony, and infrequently used in the Gk. of their time, seemed
ideally suited for expressing the special relationship of — Israel to Yahweh. /aos
serves in the overwhelming majority of cases as a translation of the Heb. ‘am and
means Israel as the chosen people of God, just as, on the other hand, the Heb. gdy
is used particularly for the Gentiles (ethné).
About 10 times Israel is called the “people of Yahweh’’. In another 300 cases
we find forms with a pronominal suffix (e.g. ‘ammi, ‘‘my people’’), where the suffix
refers to Yahweh. On about 200 occasions Yahweh is called the ‘‘God of Israel’’;
again we must add more than 600 examples with a suffix referring to Israel. In the
oldest passage we know in the OT where the expression ‘am YHWH, “people of
Yahweh’’, occurs it means the army, the levy of the people, as they march down to
battle (Jdg. 5:11, 13). This meaning of the word is still found at a later period (2
Sam, 1:12). Corresponding to it — even before the Song of Deborah — is the expres-
sion “Yahweh, God of Israel’? (Gen. 33:20; Jos. 8:30; 24:23; cf. Jdg. 5:3, 5; and
likewise in the mouth of the people, “Yahweh our God”, or in the mouth of
Yahweh, “I am Yahweh your God’’).
3. (a) The tribes which came into Palestine from Egypt brought to Shechem,
where the so-called “‘Leah tribes” had already settled, not only the worship of the
God Yahweh, but also the phrase “‘people of Yahweh’’. When the two groups of
tribes joined one another, the covenant formula was adopted: ““Yahweh the God
of Israel — Israel his people’. Jos. 24:17 f. contains the statement, ‘““Yahweh is our
God” (cf. Exod. 24:9 f.); yet the specific pronouncement that Israel is Yahweh’s
people is still lacking. Admittedly, in the story of the call of — Moses, Yahweh
says of Israel, ““My people” (Exod. 3:7), ““My people Israel’’ (Exod. 3:10; cf. the
word to Pharaoh, Exod. 5:1; 7:16). Moses also speaks in the same way to Yahweh,
calling Israel ‘“Thy people’ (Exod. 5:23). It is now, however, until the formation of
the state that the identification of Israel with the people of Yahweh is clearly made
796
PEOPLE
(1 Sam. 9:16 f.; 10:1). Yahweh’s people is now no longer an army brought together
by the call to battle, but all Israel, and that permanently. To be “prince”’ or “‘king”’
over Yahweh’s people”’ is the honorific title of the kings (cf. | Sam. 13:14; 15:1;
2 Sam. 5:2; 1 Ki. 14:7).
The phrase “Yahweh, God of Israel”’ is of great importance, and is used particu-
larly in formal speech: in swearing an oath (Jos. 9:18 f.), in prayer (Jdg. 21:3; |
Sam. 23:10 f.; Ps. 69:6), in praising God (1 Ki. 1:48), or to introduce divine
utterances (cf. Jos. 7:13; 1 Sam. 2:30; | Ki. 11:31; and often).
(b) In the prophetic crisis, when the relationship between Yahweh and the
people has been broken (Isa. 1:3; 5:25), Yahweh turned in words of Judgment and
threats ‘“‘against my people Israel” (Amos 7:8, 15; 8:2). To fall away and follow
Baal is all the more serious to Yahweh, because for him Israel is ‘““my people”
(Hos. 4:6 ff.). The exhortation addressed to them is, therefore, ““Return to your
God’’ (Hos. 12:6). Hosea’s third child is called /6’-‘ammi, ‘“‘not my people’’, and
the reason given by Yahweh is “‘“You are not my people, and I am not your God”’
(Hos. 1:9). For Israel has behaved as if she were not Yahweh’s people. In contrast
to this comes the eschatological promise, ““You are my people” (Hos. 2:23); i.e.
when Yahweh again turns to Israel, he will again become “‘My people’.
(c) The important mutual declaration between Yahweh and Israel in Deut.
26:16-19, which was possibly pronounced at the — covenant ceremony which
took place under king Josiah (cf. 2 Ki. 23:1-3), and which was traced back to —
oses (Exod. 24:7 f.; cf. 20:2; 6:7; Lev. 26:12), became, as the covenant formula,
the gateway into the history of Israel. It thus acquired permanent authority and
relevance. In the style of an adoption ceremony Yahweh declares both that Israel
is to be his people, and that he will be I[srael’s God. Thus originated the formula
which was traced back into the time of Moses: “I will be their God, and they shall
be my people” (Jer. 7:23; 11:4). A similar formula is found in the post-exilic
writings, as a prophecy for the future: “I will be your God, and you shall be my
people”’ (cf. Jer. 24:7; 30:22; 32:38; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; Zech. 8:8). The priestly
literature also knows the statement that Yahweh will be Israel’s God (cf. Gen.
17:7 f.; Exod. 29:45; Lev. 11:45). The Sitz im Leben of the covenant formula
may have been priestly instruction or prophetic proclamation.
(d) It is regarded among the people as an established fact that Yahweh is Israel’s
God. Thus there often appears with the divine name the additional phrase “‘your
God’’. In the same way ‘am, people, is further defined as “‘people of his possession”’
(e.g. Deut. 4:20; 7:6), “holy people” (e.g. Deut. 7:6; 14:2). The theme of Deutero-
nomy is the people of God; the covenant formula is embedded in instruction for
the keeping of the law (cf. Deut. 26:12-19). God’s gracious approach to the people
remains, however, the starting point (cf. Jer. 11:3 ff.). It appears again projected
into the future in the promise of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31:31-33; cf. 24:7;
32: 38-40; Ezek. 36:26 ff.). The promise of the prophets can also go out beyond the
borders of Israel and embrace the Gentile world (Zech. 2:11 f.; 14:16).
4. What makes Israel the /aos 1s Yahweh’s — election and — grace, and not
mere national, natural and historical factors. This grace must be repeatedly
confirmed by faithfulness and obedience. From an earthly, human point of view,
unfaithfulness on the part of the people makes him lose everything that makes him
the people. He then becomes a people like all the others, and indeed worse off than
797
PEOPLE
they (Deut. 28:58-64). But because Yahweh keeps faith with his people despite
all its apostasy and all unfaithfulness, Israel remains the people of God. He lives
as such not through any achievement of his own, but because of Yahweh’s faith-
fulness towards him. The character of Israel is thus determined not by himself, his
origin or history, but solely by the fact that Yahweh keeps faith with him.
5. Judaism. (a) Philo used /aos and /eds, especially in his writings on the Penta-
teuch, but the specific, historical meaning of the word is lost amid his speculations
(cf. Sacr. 6 f.). He interprets the “chosen people” (Deut. 7:7) as individual wise men
also constitute the head of humanity (Praem. 123, 125). In Josephus’ Antiquities
the influence of LXX usage may be seen in his use of the word /aos for Israel,
though occasionally he also uses it for other nations, e.g. Egypt (Ant. 2, 301). In
War and Ap. Josephus also uses — ethnos and — démos indiscriminately.
(b) In the Rabbinic literature and the Pseudepigrapha it is part of the foundation
of all faith that Israel is God’s chosen people. Israel is God’s possession, his portion,
and his lot.
Israel’s special relationship to his God is expressed in metaphors taken from
family life: Israel is Yahweh’s — firstborn son (2 Esd. 6:58), the Israelites are
God’s brothers and kinsmen (SB III 263 f., 682), royal children (Shabbath 14:4).
Even the poorest among them are children of Abraham (SB IV 714). As a special
token of Yahweh’s love it has been revealed to them that they are children of God
(Aboth 3:14), and only they are called God’s children (2 Esd. 6:58). Israel is also
called the bride, the betrothed, the spouse of God (SB III 822 f.). What is expressed
in this terminology is not an ethical relationship but an inborn one.
Alongside these ideas there is that of friendship between Yahweh and Israel
(Tanh. 20). As in the OT, Israel 1s the “‘holy people’’, because he has the Torah
and does not worship idols (Sifra Lev. 20:7). The world was created for Israel’s
sake, and without Israel it cannot continue in existence (2 Esd. 6:55 ff.; SB I 833;
III 140, 248). Israel is the “‘righteous one’’ whom the rest of the world has to thank
for its life: were it not for Israel, God would have destroyed the world long since.
The present time with its gifts is of little importance in comparison with the
coming messianic time. Then the people will receive all God’s gifts in their fullness,
and dominion over the world, and the people of the world — in so far as they still
exist at all — will be his servants. The thought finds expression in the saying in the
Mishnah, “‘All Israelites have a share in the world to come”’ (Sanhedrin 10:1). The
only exceptions are serious sinners and the evil generations mentioned in the
scriptures (SB III 293).
(c) In the writings of the Qumran community ‘am often means Israel. He is the
people chosen from all peoples (1QM 10:9), with whom God has made an eternal
covenant (1QM 13:7), and whom he has redeemed to be a people for ever (1QM
13:9). He is the people of God’s redemption (1QM 14:5) whom he will not allow
to be destroyed by other nations (1QpHab 5:3). The wicked among God’s people
he will destroy (1QpHab 5:5). Among the people there is, however, a ‘“‘remnant”’
(1QH 6:8), the “saints of his people’ (1QM 6:6).
The Qumran community thus described itself as the ‘am, the people (LQM 1:12),
the “people of the saints of the covenant” (1QM 10:10), as the “elect of the holy
people’ (1QM 12:1). They called themselves the “‘assembly of the people’? (CD
19:35). The “‘people’’ is the army in the final conflict (QM 9:1; 10:2), or a
798
PEOPLE
particular company within this army (1QM 8:9; 16:7). In the hierarchy of the
Qumran community the “‘people” has the third place following the priests and
Levites (1QS 2:21; 6:9).
In numerous other places ‘am and ‘ammim mean the nations, the Gentiles. God
is praised as the creator who has brought about the division of the nations (1QM
10:14). A sword is coming over all nations (1QM 16:1), so that they will be shat-
tered (1QH 4:26). Their heroes will be brought low by God (1QM 11:13), and
their princes will be thrust down (1QSb 3:28; 5:27).
NT 1. Jaos occurs 141 times in the NT, 84 being in Luke alone (Gospel and Acts)
and 14 in Matt., 12 in Paul, 13 in Heb., 9 in Rev. It is probable that the language
and concepts of the LXX are here exerting an influence, though /aos often follows a
previous reference to — ochlos and carries the same meaning (e.g. Lk. 7:24, 29;
8:42, 47; cf. also Matt. 27:25 f.; Mk. 14:2), or stands instead of ochlos in a
parallel passage (e.g. Lk. 19:48, cf. Mk. 11:18; Lk. 20:45, cf. Matt. 23:1). When
used on its own, /aos can mean also crowd, the common people (e.g. Lk. 1:10; 7:1;
20:1, 9; Acts 2:47). Many of these passages, however, refer to the activity of John
the Baptist, Jesus or the apostles, whose ministry was practically restricted to
Israel (cf. Matt. 4:23; 26:5; 27:64), and Israel is after all the /Jaos and not an >
ethnos (an exception being Jn. 11:50, where both words are used). |
The plur. /aoi is parallel to ethné in Lk. 2:31 f. (cf. Isa. 40:5 f.; 42:6); Rom. 15:11
(cf. Ps. 117:1); Rev. 10:11 (cf. Dan. 3:4). The great multitude (— ochlos) standing
before the -- Lamb comes from every — ethnos and /aos (Rev. 7:9; 11:9; 17:15),
and is intended to mean the whole of humanity.
A hyperbolic pas, — all, often precedes Jaos (e.g. Lk. 3:21; 7:29; Acts. 3:9;
5:34). We also read of the pléthos tou laou, lit. fullness of the people (Lk. 1:10;
6:17; Acts 21:36), which may be variously translated as the great multitude, the
whole crowd. As in the LXX, /aos can mean the people in contrast to the ruling
classes (Lk. 22:2; 23:5; Acts 6:12), or in a cultic setting the broad mass of the
people as opposed to the priest (Heb. 5:3; 7:27), or again, the ordinary people as
opposed to the few witnesses of the resurrection (Acts. 10:41; 13:31).
2. In keeping with the LXX, — Israel is described as the /aos (the laos Israél,
‘people of Israel’’, e.g. Acts 4:10; 13:17; Aoutos ho laos, “this people’’, in OT quota-
tions at Matt. 13:15 [cf. Isa. 6:10]; 15:8 [cf. Isa. 29:13]; Acts 28:26 f. [cf. Isa.
6:9 f.]). The idea is also alluded to when the high priests, scribes and elders or
leaders of the /aos are spoken of (e.g. Matt. 2:4; 21:23; Lk. 19:47; Acts 4:9);
when it is said that Jesus will save his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21; — God,
art. Emmanouél; cf. Lk. 1:68, 77; 2:10, 32), or that God has visited his Jaos by
sending his prophet Jesus (Lk. 7:16; 24:19), or that he will not reject his /aos, Israel
(Rom. 11:1 f.; cf. Ps. 94:14). Even an individual synagogue can be called Jaos
(Acts 13:15); it is God’s people in a particular place (+ Church, Synagogue).
The same line of thought is present when Israel as the /aos is set over against the
Gentiles as ethné (Acts 4:25 ff.; cf. LXX Deut. 32:43; Ps. 2:1; cf. also 26:23;
Rom. 15:10). Pilate is here identified with the ethné, and Herod and Israel with the
laoi. Frequently qualifying phrases or the context show that /aos means Israel,
e.g. in the use of the word as parallel for ““Jews”’ in Acts 12:4; in a list along with
“law” and “‘temple” in Acts 21:28, or “customs of the fathers’ in Acts 28:17;
799
PEOPLE
in the comment that the God-fearing Gentile Cornelius had done much good to the
laos (Acts 10:2).
3. Finally the honoured title of Israel, that of being God’s /aos, is transferred
to the Christian — church. God has taken from the ethné a laos for his ~ name
(Acts 15:14). He has called a church from the Jews and the Gentiles (Rom. 9:24;
Hos. 1:10). This church (even as a local church, cf. Acts 18:10) is the — temple
and /aos of God (2 Cor. 6:14 ff.; the quotations from Lev. 26:12 and Ezek. 37:27
refer in the original setting to Israel, but are here applied to the Christian church).
The description of Israel as the Jaos periousios, people of his possession (Exod.
19:5 f.; 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; — Possessions), is likewise claimed for the Chris-
tian church (Tit. 2:14; cf. 1 Pet. 2:9).
In Heb., especially, the statements of the OT cultus, seen as types of Christ, are
transferred to the church. The Son of God became man to atone for the sins of the
laos (Heb. 2:17), which he sanctified with his blood (Heb. 13:12). The church is the
laos for whom a — Sabbath rest remains (Heb. 4:9), and it is to the church that
the warning of Ps. 135:14 applies (Heb. 10:30). Similarly in Rev. 18:4 (cf. Jer.
51:45) and 21:3 (cf. Zech. 2:10; Ezek. 37:27) OT passages are applied to the
church as the new people of God. This means that by faith in Jesus Christ as the
kyrios, — Lord, the church becomes the laos theou, people of God, irrespective
of the national background of its members (Gal. 3:26 ff.; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 3:11).
That is not, of course, to say that in the NT the church has simply taken the place
of Israel as the people of God, as if Israel had lost the priority given to her by God.
This is perhaps the major problem that Paul wrestles with in Rom. His conclusion is
that Israel is and remains God’s people, and has not been rejected by God (cf. Rom.
9-11, especially, Rom. 9:4 f.; 11:1 f.). ““A hardening has come upon part of Israel,
until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved. ...
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all”’
(Rom. 11:25 f., 32; cf. also chs. 1-4). H. Bietenhard
| OxhOC | 6xho¢ (ochlos), (throng of) people, crowd, mob.
CL ochlos (derivation uncertain, attested since Pindar), means a crowd, throng;
the public, in contrast to individual people, and particularly in contrast to the
nobility or people of rank, “‘ochlos is often the ‘leaderless and rudderless mob,’ the
‘politically and culturally insignificant mass’ ”’ (R. Meyer, TDNT V 583; cf. Plato,
Leg. 2, 670b). In the military world the word means a company, troop, army. But
it can also mean people. When the thought of size is uppermost it can mean a great
crowd.
oT In the LXX ochlos occurs about 60 times, chiefly in later books as a translation
of several words including hadmén, crowd (1 Ki. 20[21]:13; 2 Chr. 20:15;
Dan. 11:11 LXX; 10:6; 11:10-13 Theodotion); hayil, army; ‘am, people (Num.
20:20; Jer. 48[31]:42; 38[45]:1); gahal, assembly (Jer. 31[38]:8; Ezek. 16:40;
17:17; 23:24, 46 f.); rabbim, many (2 Esd. 3:12). In Dan. 3:4 it means people; in
Dan. 10:6 (Theodotion) an unruly crowd; in Jer. 31:8 an assembled company of the
people. The congregation of the people (qahdal) which is to stone the adulteress
800
PEOPLE
becomes the ochlos in Gk. (Lev. 24:16). In other passages it means the camp-
followers (Jud. 7:18; 1 Macc. 9:35), those unable to march; or, the army, mercen-
aries (1 Macc. 1:17; 20, 29; 2 Macc. 14:23, 43, 45 f.; 3 Macc. 2:7). In Ezek. 23:24 it
is used as a term of quantity: ochlos laon, a host of peoples; cf. the ochloi ethnon,
hosts of nations, in Wis. 6:2. In Bel 30 ochlos means the population of the land
in contrast to the Jews.
The term was carried over as a loan-word into the Middle Heb. of the Rab.
writings. There it can mean a crowd either of Jews or of Gentiles, or also military
bodies of men (in the sense of troop, retinue, bands).
NT In the NT ochlos occurs 174 times. Of these 4 are in Rev., and all the others in
the Gospels and Acts. In Mk. 14:43 the word means the armed crowd at the
arrest of Jesus, but usually an unorganized crowd of people not formed or charac-
terized by any particular background or custom. There are the people who come
to hear John the Baptist (Lk. 3:7, 10) or Jesus, or who expa2ct to be healed by him
(e.g. Matt. 4:25; 5:1). It is especially to these people, who have nothing particular
to offer, that Jesus directs his teaching and his compassion (Matt. 9:33), and his
provision of food (Matt. 14:19; Lk. 9:16; Jn. 6:5). The contrast to these is provided
by the ruling classes, the — Pharisees and scribes, who despised the ochlos as the
ignorant masses who did not keep the law. To them the masses were accursed
(Jn. 7:31, 48 f.; cf. — ethnos, ‘am-h@ ares). In Jn. 7:49 ochlos doubtless refers to
the term ‘am hd’ares, people of the land. In the pre-exilic age the people of the
land denoted full citizens who were liable to military service. But in the post-exilic
age it denoted the foreign or mixed population, as distinct from the returned exiles.
It became a term of abuse, connoting ignorance of and lax attitude towards the
law (cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 310 f.). Hence, the religious leaders
with their strict attitude to the law regarded them as accursed. Jesus and later
Paul were accused of leading the ochlos astray (Jn. 7:12; Acts 19:26). The ochlos
was divided, however, in its opinion of Jesus (Jn. 7:43).
Herod Antipas hesitated to kill John the Baptist because he feared the ochlos
(Matt. 14:5). The ruling class similarly fear the ochlos and do not dare to lay hands
on Jesus (Matt. 21:26, 46); but they stir up the ochlos against Jesus (Matt. 27:20).
Pilate acted under pressure from the populace (Mk. 15:15). Jesus told parables to
the ochlos (Matt. 13:34). He had a whole ochlos of disciples (Lk. 6:17; cf. Acts
1:15). A great ochlos went to Bethany to see Jesus and Lazarus (Jn. 12:9). Before
the throne of God and of the Lamb there stands an innumerable ochlos (Rev.
7:9); and in Rev. 17:15 nations are meant. H.. Bietenhard
; mdAic (polis), city, city-state; zoAitnc (polités), citizen;
TMOKIC | ; ib
| moAltevonial (politeuomai), be a citizen, take part in
government, live, conduct one’s life; zoAiteta (politeia), rights of a citizen, com-
monwealth, state; zoAitevua (politeuma), commonwealth, state, colony, citizen-
ship; zoditapyne (politarchés), politarch, civic magistrate.
cL 1. The word polis, attested probably from Mycenaean Gk., is perhaps derived
from an Indo-Germanic root meaning to fill. This may suggest the polis as a
filled-in wall which served as a fortress and refuge. As early as Homer pfolis and
801
PEOPLE
its lengthened form ptoliethron meant a city, state, and polités a citizen. politeuomai
means to be a citizen, live as a citizen, to administer the state, and conduct public
affairs. The abstract noun politeia means citizen’s rights, life of a citizen, his part
in the life of the state, the condition or way of life of citizenship, and also civil
policy, constitution, the state. The closely related noun politeuma had originally
the same meaning. It was then used for individual political acts, measures or in-
trigues; in Aristotle for government, constitution, and also acts or branches of
public administration. Later still the word meant political commonwealth, the state
generally, and less frequently, citizens’ rights. In the Hellenistic period colonies
abroad with established political constitutions are also so described.
2. The development of the city-state in Greece is an historically logical and yet
typically Gk. phenomenon. The rule of warrior kings which had been carried over
from the period of the great migrations held the people together in only a very
loose fashion, since it became effective only in times of war. Hence, there arose an
increasing desire for concentration of the political will, not indeed to cover the
Greeks as a whole, but individual, overseeable territories or districts. In the 8th
and 7th centuries B.c. a large number of settlements came into being, mostly in
dependence upon those already in existence. The concentration of political life and
the multiplication of tasks within the new framework enabled the nobility, as the
assistants of the king, to strengthen their own power and finally to supplant the
monarchy. In the period which followed the city-state or polis became the most
typical expression of Gk. culture and was regarded as the most important thing in
life, to which the free citizen gave his total allegiance, and in the administration
and government of which he had a part. The citizen embodied the state; citizenship
was identified in terms of the city-state. The political order, defined by laws, was
upheld by religious consecration. Religion was an essential part of the polis. The
formation of city-states as an independent expression of political will, subject to
no one, certainly hindered the unification of larger areas of the Gk. mainland. But
even in its perversion, when rule was handed over to the mob in the Athens of the
Peloponnesian War, one can see clearly how fruitful the idea of the unification of an
overseeable number of free citizens had been. With the rise of the Macedonians
and the spread of their blanket super-state (and later that of the Roman empire),
the ancient polis came to an end.
oT 1. In the LXX polis occurs about 1,600 times, chiefly to translate ‘ir, city (e.g.
Gen. 4:17; 10:11 f.; 11:4 f.,, 8), in Deut. also S§*arim, gates (e.g. 12:15-21;
20:10 ff.), occasionally giryah, city (e.g. Jos. 14:15; 15:9, 13, 15 f.). In Israel the
city has a different function from that of the polis in Greece. Israel’s constitution is
fundamentally a tribal one (—» Tribe). This distinguishes him also from the Ca-
naanite city-states with their monarchy. In the OT, therefore, every fortified height
can be called a “‘city”. A memory of the impression which the fortified cities of
Canaan made on the immigrating Israelites is probably retained in Num. I? .29
Moreover, it must have taken a long while following the conquest before the
established cities could be overcome and occupied (cf. Jdg. 1:27 ff.; 3:1-5).
Jerusalem was not conquered until David’s time (2 Sam. 5:6 ff.). The city afforded
its inhabitants protection against enemies and enabled them to withstand attackers.
Very often cities are spoken of, when it is their inhabitants that are meant. Thus
802
PEOPLE
the city was to a considerable extent, as in Greece, a community of persons (cf. 1
Sam. 4:13; 2 Sam. 15:14; Est. 3:15; Isa. 40:9).
2. Of particular importance as a city is —-> Jerusalem. It is referred to simply as
the city (Ezek. 7:23). Yahweh has chosen it (2 Chr. 6:38), to make his — name
dwell there (cf. Deut. 12:5; 14:23), and that prayers and sacrifices may be offered
there. Jerusalem is the “‘city of God” (cf. Pss. 46:4; 48:1, 8; 87:3), the “‘city of the
great king” (Ps. 48:2; cf. Matt. 5:35), the “holy city” (cf. Isa. 48:2; 52:1). When its
citizens did not live up to the character with which God had thus invested it, the
prophet called them to repentance (Ezek. 22:2—4). In latter days a new Jerusalem,
more in keeping with its original calling, was expected (Isa. ] : 26; 32:28; Jer. 31:38;
Joel 3:17).
These hopes of the renewal of Jerusalem were Kept alive in Judaism (Sir. 36:12 f.;
cf. the 14th of the Eighteen Benedictions, for text —> Prayer, art. proseuchomai,
OT 6). The future Jerusalem is expected to come down from heaven, where it has
been kept from the beginning (cf. 2 Esd. 7:26; 8:52).
3. The derived nouns are found almost exclusively in the Books of Maccabees.
(a) polités occurs 10 times in 2 and 3 Macc., and 7 times in the OT besides, where
it mostly translates the Heb. réa‘, one’s neighbour of one’s own people (Prov.
11:9, 12; 24:28[43]; Jer. 29[36]:23; 31[38]:34; — Brother, Neighbour). In the
sense of citizen, the word is found only at 2 Macc. 9:19 and 3 Macc. 1:22. Other
instances are Gen. 23:11; Num. 4:18; Zech. 13:7; 2 Macc. 4:5, 50; 5:6, 8, 23;
14:8; 15:30.
(b) politeia (9 times in 2-4 Macc.) usually means devout way of life (2 Macc.
8:17; 4 Macc. 17:19); in 3 Macc. 3:21, 23, citizens’ rights. Other instances are 2
Macc. 4:11; 6:23; 13:14; 4 Macc. 3:20; 8:7.
(c) politeuomai always means to walk (Est. 8:12; 2 Macc. 6:1; 11:25; 3 Macc.
3:4; 4 Macc. 2:8, 23; 4:23; 5:16). politeuma occurs only at 2 Macc. 12:7, where it
means community.
NT In the NT polis is found 16] times, being especially frequent in Luke (39 times),
Acts (42 times), Matt. (26 times), and Rev. (27 times); rarely in Paul (4 times),
and only 8 times each in Mk. and Jn. It never means state, but always city, in the
sense of an enclosed settlement or its inhabitants (Matt. 8:34; 21:10; Mk. 1:33).
The distinction between it and komeé, village, often disappears (cf. Matt. 11:20
with Mk. 8:23; Lk. 2:4 with Jn. 7:42).
It is in keeping with OT and Jewish usage when Jerusalem is called the “‘holy
city” (Matt. 4:5; 27:53; Rev. 11:2). This city kills the —> prophets (Matt. 23:37)
and also kills Jesus (Rev. 11:8; cf. Lk. 13:33). Her downfall is certain (Matt.
24:2 ff. par. Mk. 13:2 ff.; Lk. 21:6 ff).
1. Over against the present Jerusalem there stands the Jerusalem above, the free
Jerusalem, the mother of Christians (Gal. 4:25 f.; > Parable, art. parabolé NT
for discussion of allegory and typology here). Heb. in particular contrasts the
present and the future Jerusalem. Even the patriarchs knew of this new city and
set their hope upon it. Compared with it all earthly cities are mere temporary
tent-camps. For the sake of this coming city the patriarchs regarded themselves as
strangers (— Foreign, art. xenos) and sojourners (— Foreign, art. parepidémos).
This city is Mount Zion and “the city of the living God” (Heb. 11:10, 16; 12:22 ff.).
803
PEOPLE
It awaits the Christians who have here no continuing city (Heb. 13:14; cf. Rev.
3:12; 22:4). The earthly Jerusalem is only a copy and a shadow (Heb. 8:5; 10:1)
or a symbol (Heb. 9:9) of the city which is to come, and which is already present
in heaven. In this new city those who conquer in times of persecution have citizens’
rights (Rev. 3:12). The new Jerusalem will come down upon the new earth (Rev.
21:2, 10 ff.).
2. polités, citizen, occurs only 4 times in the NT, and has no political emphasis
except in Acts 21:39, where Paul says that he is a citizen of Tarsus. Jerome claims
that Paul came to Tarsus with his parents as prisoners of war from Gischala in
Galilee (De viris illustribus, 5). Alternatively his parents may have come from
Gischala, and Paul himself may have been born at Tarsus, where his father,
liberated, may have become a Roman citizen (cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the
Apostles, 1971, 620; — also Jerusalem NT 5 (b)). The other instances of polités occur
at Lk. 15:15; 19:14; Heb. 8:11 quoting Jer. 31:34.
3. sympolités, fellow citizen, occurs at Eph. 2:19 and indicates that Gentile
Christians share through Christ in the calling of Israel, the people of God, as
fellow-citizens.
4. politeia in Acts 22:28 means the Roman citizenship of Paul. In Eph. 2:12 it
means the privileged position of Israel in salvation history, to which Gentile
Christians now have access by faith in Jesus Christ.
5. politeuma occurs only at Phil. 3:20 where Paul contrasts the Christian life-
style with that of the ‘“‘enemies of the cross of Christ” (3:18): ““But our common-
wealth [politeuma] is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus
Christ” (RSV). The older translation ‘‘citizenship’”’ (RV) stresses the status of the
believers, whereas “‘conversation”’ (AV), i.e. way of life, has affinities with the vb.
politeuomai (see 6). M. Dibelius suggests “‘colony’’ (An die Thessalonicher, I, IT;
An die Philipper, HNT, 1937, ad. loc.) But the meaning is more likely to be that of
‘capital or native city, which keeps the citizens on its registers” (cf. E. Stauffer,
New Testament Theology, 1955, 296 f.). The second half of the verse requires a
place to be meant here, in order to make sense of the remark “‘and from it we
await’. Moreover, “‘the background of the word, in this context, is the situation
of the readers who live in a city which was a Roman military colony directly
related to the capital city of Rome” (R. P. Martin, The Epistle of Paul to the
Philippians, TC, 1959, 160 f.). As Roman subjects, the Philippian Christians owed
an allegiance to the far off capital city of Rome. At the same time, they had “‘an-
other king, one Jesus” (Acts 17:7). Hence, on earth they are resident aliens who
dwell temporarily in a foreign country but who have their capital and homeland
elsewhere (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11; Jas. 1:1; Heb. 11:13; Ep.Diog. 5).
6. politeuomai is found only at Acts 23:1 and Phil. 1:27, where (as in the usage
of Hellenistic Judaism) it means to walk, in a way in keeping with the faith.
7. politarchés means a civic magistrate, a politarch. In Macedonian cities and
occasionally elsewhere a number of politarchs formed the city council. There were
five or six in Thessalonica before whom the Jews dragged Jason (Acts 17:6, 8),
accusing him of harbouring ‘‘these men who have turned the world upside down’”’
and ‘‘acting against the decrees of Caesar’’. The politarchs dismissed the charge
thereby putting the Jews in a bad light and the Christians and authorities in a good
one (cf. Arndt, 692; E. D. Burton, ““The Politarchs in Macedonia and Elsewhere’,
804
PEOPLE/PERSECUTION
American Journal of Theology, 2, 1898, 598-632). H. Bietenhard
— > Brother, — Church, — Foreign, — Greek, — Israel, — Samaritan, — Tribe
(a). G. Bertram and K. L. Schmidt, ethnos etc., TDNT II 364-72; R. Bultmann, “‘Polis and Hades
in Sophocles’ Antigone”’, in Essays: Theological and Philosophical, 1955, 22-35; A. Cody, ‘‘When
is the Chosen People Called a géy?’’ VT 14, 1964, 1-6; O. Cullmann, The State in the New Testa-
ment, 1957; W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial
Doctrine, 1974; J. D. M. Derrett, Jesus’ Audience: The Social and Psychological Environment in
which He Worked, 1973; V. E. Ehrenberg, ‘“‘Polis’, OCD, 851 f.; and The Greek State, 1960; J. H.
Elliott, The Elect and the Holy, Supplements to NovT 12, 1966; W. G. Forrest, The Emergence of
Greek Democracy, 1966; G. Glotz, The Greek City, 1929; W. Grundmann, démos etc., TDNT II
63 ff.; J. Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, SBT 24, 1958; J. Jervell, Luke and the People of
God, 1972; A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, 1940; G. D. Kilpatrick,
“The Gentiles and the Strata of Luke’’, in O. Bocher and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas.
Festschrift fiir Gustav Stahlin, 1970, 83~88; R. Martin-Achard, A Light to the Nations, 1962; R.
Meyer and P. Katz, ochlos, TDNT V 582-90; M. Noth, ‘‘God King, and Nation in the Old
Testament’’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 145-78; S. Pancaro, ‘‘ ‘People
of God’ in St John’s Gospel ?’’, NTS 16, 1969-70, 114~29; J. Scharbert, ‘‘People (of God)”, EBT
II 651-58; E. A. Speiser, ‘‘ ‘People’ and ‘Nation’ of Israel’’, JBL 79, 1960, 157-63; H. Strathmann,
polis etc., TDNT VI 516~35; H. Strathmann and R. Meyer, laos, TDNT IV 29-57; S. von Tilborg,
‘hoi ochloi”’, in The Jewish Leaders in Matthew, 1972, 142-65; J. D. W. Watts, ‘“The People of
God”, ExpT 67, 1955-56, 232-37.
(b). N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes, Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskap-Akademi i Oslo, 1941;
C. Dietzfelbinger, Heilsgeschichte bei Paulus ?, ThEH Neue Folge 126, 1965; J. Dupont, “‘LAos Ex
ETHNON (Act. xv. 14)”, NTS 3, 1956-57, 47-50; G. Eichholz, ‘‘Der Begriff ‘Volk’ im Neuen Testa-
ment’’, in Tradition und Interpretation, ThB 29, 1965, 78 ff.; H.-H. Esser, Volk und Nation in der
evangelischen Ethik, Das Gesprach Heute 72, 1968; A. Feuillet, ‘La Demeure céleste et la Destinée
des Chrétiens: Exégése de IJ Cor. v. 1-10 et Contribution a l’Etude des Fondemonts de |’Escha-
tologie Paulinienne’’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 44, 1956, 161-92, 360-402; R. Klobert,
““ghl — laos — ekklésia’’, Biblica 46, 1965, 464 ff.; R. Meyer, “‘Der ‘am-hd’ares”, Judaica 3, 1947,
166-99; C. Miiller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk. Eine Untersuchung zu Rom. 9-11,
FRLANT 86, 1969; F. Mussner, ‘‘ ‘Volk Gottes’ im Neuen Testament”, Trierer Theologische
Zeitschrift 72, 1963, 169 ff.; and ““Das Volk Gottes nach Eph. 1, 3~14’’, Concilium 1, 1965, 842 ff. ;
A. Oepke, Das neue Gottesvolk in Schrifttum, Schauspiel, bildender Kunst und Weltgestaltung,
1950; G. Rau, “‘Das Volk in der lukanischen Passionsgeschichte. Eine Konjektur zu Lk. 23, 13’’,
ZNW 56, 1965, 41 ff.; W. Ruppel, ‘“‘Politeuma’’, Philologus 82, 1927, 268-312, 433-52; K. L.
Schmidt, Die Polis in Kirche und Welt, 1940; W. Schweitzer, Der entymythologisierte Staat.
Studie zur Revision der evangelischen Ethik des Politischen, 1968; F. Thiess, Das Reich der Damonen
1960; R. Walker, Studie zu Rém. 13, 1-7, ThEH Neue Folge 132, 1966; H. D. Wendland and J.
Blau, “Volk”, EKL III 1672 ff.; H. Wildberger, Jahwes Eigentumsvolk, 1960; E. Wirthwein, Der
‘am-ha@’ares im Alten Testament, 1936.
Persecution, Tribulation, Affliction
01mK@ (didk6), run after, pursue, persecute; &éd1@K@
(ekdioko), drive away, persecute severely; KAaTAOIM@KW
(katadiok6), search for, hunt for; d1jyydc (didgmos), persecution.
O1WMK@
CL dioko is perhaps connected with the Homeric diemai, flee. It means lit. to chase,
pursue, run after, drive away, and fig. to pursue something zealously, try to
achieve something, try to obtain, prosecute.
oT 1. In the LXX didko, along with ekdioko and katadioko, is used primarily of
pursuit by hostile soldiers (Exod. 15:9), or by anyone whose intentions are
hostile (Gen. 31:23). It translates a number of Heb. vbs., but chiefly rddap, pursue;
805
PERSECUTION
the other vbs. occur only in isolated instances. This gives rise to the usage which is
characteristic of the Pss. of individual lamentation (e.g. Pss. 7:1, 5{2, 6]; 31[30]:15
35[34]:3; cf. also Jer. 15:15; 20:11), where persecution and persecutors refer to
the circumstances and persons that cause the psalmist to suffer, without there
necessarily being active persecution in the narrower specific sense.
2. The OT also contains exhortations to strive for a goal. In normal Gk. settings
it will be the good, the beautiful, or virtue that is to be pursued. In the LXX it is
relationships, e.g. social righteousness (Deut. 16:20; cf. also Josephus, Ant. 6, 12,
7), peace (Ps. 34[33]:14), and righteousness in the sense of true honouring of God
(Prov. 15:9), that are to be followed. The corresponding NT usage has its roots
here.
NT Summary of NT use. (a) The commonest meaning is to persecute, or be per-
secuted (some 30 times, especially in the Gospels, Acts, Paul, Rev.). The noun
didgmos refers only to persecution. In 1 Thess. 2:15 the compound ekdidko also
means to persecute (RSV, NEB drive out). (b) The fig. use is found only in the
Epistles, always with a positive meaning; the use in Phil. 3:12, 14 belongs here (cf.
also zéted, — Seek, and zélod, — Zeal). (c) didko (Lk. 17:23) and katadioko (Mk.
1:36) mean to run after, follow, in the passages referred to.
1. Persecution: (a) God’s messengers in particular meet persecution. This was
already the experience of the — prophets (Matt. 5:12; Acts 7:52), and will equally
be that of Jesus’ — disciples (Matt. 5:11 f., 44; 10:23), the more so as they are
followers of the Lord, who had to suffer persecution himself (Jn. 5:16). This con-
nection is clearly expressed in Jn. 15:20: “If they persecuted me, they will persecute
you.” Paul, once the persecutor of the church (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; 23; Phil.
3:6; 1 Tim. 1:13), experienced persecution himself, once the glorified Lord had
made him his messenger (Gal. 5:11; 2 Tim. 3:11). In 2 Tim. 3:12 he expresses the
view that being a Christian will always be linked with persecution (— Suffer).
(b) The message is persecuted in the Christian (Acts 22:4, the “‘way’’, the course
steered by faith), or Christ himself (Acts 9:4 f.; 22:7 f;. 26:14 f.). According to Jn.
15:18 ff., persecution 1s caused by the world’s hatred of God and his revelation in
Christ (cf. also Matt. 10:22; Mk. 13:13; Lk. 21:17; Rev. 12:13). Paul sees behind
it the contrast between — flesh and — spirit; the hostility of the natural man against
God and so also against the man led by God’s Spirit (Gal. 4:29).
(c) Hence persecution may be a sign that one is on God’s side. Thus Jesus calls
those blessed ‘‘who are persecuted for righteous’s sake”’ (Matt. 5:10 ff.; — Blessing).
(d) There is the danger of corrupting the message in order to avoid persecution
(Gal. 6:12). Christians are specially challenged to maintain their faith during
persecution. They are to meet the hatred of their persecutors by a word of blessing
(Rom. 12:14; cf. especially Matt. 5:44).
(e) But it 1s especially in persecution that Christians experience the help, strength
and saving power of Christ (2 Cor. 4:7 ff.; 12:10; Rom. 8:35-39). In persecution
Paul set an apostolic example by enduring it patiently (1 Cor. 4:12). It is a special
reason for giving God thanks, when persecution is endured with faith (2 Thess.
1:3 f.). :
2. Pursuit of Christian objectives. The metaphorical meaning of the word
shows more strongly than zéted, seek, that there are certain things which the
806
PERSECUTION
Christian must strive after, such as hospitality (Rom. 12:13), mutual peace (Rom.
14:19; 1 Pet. 3:11; Heb. 12:14), holiness, love (1 Cor. 14:1), doing good (1 Thess.
5:15), and righteousness (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22). These are lasting objectives in
the life of faith, which has as its goal the attaining of the — resurrection from the
dead. Paul sees the Christian life as ultimately directed to this goal. He presses on
to it like the runner set on winning the victor’s prize (Phil. 3:12 ff.), although he
knows that “‘it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy”’
(Rom. 9:16; cf. v. 30 f.). G. Ebel
[iwc Oiiwic (thlipsis), oppression, affliction, tribulation;
a | OAiBw (thlib6), press upon, oppress, afflict; otevoywpia
(stenochoria), straits, distress, affliction, difficulty; otevoywpéw (stenochéred),
crowd, cramp, confine, oppress.
cL The verb thlib6é (Aristophanes onwards; from the root thlad, crush, squash)
means press, squeeze, crush, This lit. meaning is found in Mk. 3:9; “‘lest they
should crush him.”’ The perf. part. pass. has the meaning of narrow, strait (cf.
Matt. 7:13, of the way to life; Gate). The fig. use is very common, both in the
sense of oppress (external) and of grieve, vex (internal). Epictetus speaks of the
pressures of life (ta thlibonta) which the true Stoic must and can overcome ( Disser-
tationes, 4, 1, 45; cf. 1, 25, 17 and 28; 2, 27, 2 f.; 3, 13, 8).
The noun thlipsis, oppression, distress, affliction, is linked with the vb. It is
occasionally found coupled with stenochoria (derived from stenos, or steinos,
narrow, and choria, space, place), which from Thucydides onwards is used to
express a narrow place, and hence being pressed by inner and outer difficulties.
The corresponding vb. stenochoreo is found in its semi-lit. sense in 2 Cor. 6:12:
“‘you are not restricted [stenochdreisthe] by us.”
OT In the LXX thlipsis is used to render a number of Heb. terms, especially sdrar,
sar, lahas, lahas. These Heb. words denote need, distress, and various afflictions
depending on the context, e.g. war, exile and personal hostility. Here too it is found
a number of times linked with stenochdéria (e.g. Deut. 28:53, 55, 57; Isa. 8:22;
30:6; Est. 1:1 [LXX, but not MT]), as well as with other terms expressive of fear
and pain, in many cases the meaning being almost synonymous. The thlipsis of the
LXX is often the oppression which belongs of necessity to the history of Israel
and which was regarded by the faithful as part of salvation history. There is a
connection between oppression (Exod. 3:9) and deliverance (Exod. 3:10). Even
when the oppression is a punishment, its purpose is deliverance (Neh. 9:27; Hos.
5:14-6:2). The eschatological nature of the oppression is often stressed (cf. Zech.
1:15; Hab. 3:16). Dan 12:1 even speaks of “‘a time of trouble, such as never has
been since there was a nation’”’ until the writer’s own time. But here also deliverance
from trouble is mentioned, and this expresses the faith and hope of the faithful in
Israel. ““Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the Lord delivers him out of
them all’? (Ps. 34:19; cf. Ps. 37:39). This was the unshakeable conviction of the
faithful, who were able to pray, ““Thou who has made me see many sore troubles
wilt revive me again”’ (Ps. 71:20).
807
PERSECUTION
Judaism also knew of the troubles of the people which it expected in the end-
time and described in detail in the apocalypses (Eth.Enoch., 2 Esd., Syr.Bar.). The
Qumran texts accommodate themselves to this picture. They speak of the last great
tribulation (1QM 1:12; 15:1) and of the personal trials of the writer of the Hymns
(1QH 5:12; 9:28; 15:16).
NT thlipsis is used 45 times in the NT, thlibo 10 times, always fig. apart from Mk.
3:9 and Matt. 7:13 (see above cL). The RV and RSV translate thlipsis about
equally by affliction and tribulation; though the RSV especially also uses other
renderings. stenochoria is found 4 times (Rom. 2:9; 8:35; 2 Cor. 6:4; 12:10), and
stenochoreo twice (2 Cor. 4:8; 6:12). The usage in the NT is clearly the same as in
the OT. The following cases are of importance.
1. thlipsis has an eschatological significance for the church. This may be seen
by the quotation in Matt. 24:21 and Mk. 13:19 of Dan. 12:1 (see above oT). The
tribulation stands in the closest connection with the — Son of man (Matt. 24:30)
of Dan. 7:13 and the birth-pangs of the messiah (Matt. 24:8; — Jesus Christ,
art. Christos; cf. SB I 950). This tribulation belongs to the period of catastrophes
before the final salvation, and it is characterized by leading astray, hate, political
strife and catastrophes of nature. It is all necessary, “‘for this must take place”’
(Matt. 24:6; + Necessity). The background of this ““must’’ may be found in Dan.
2:28 f., 45. The same thought is to be found in Rev., not merely in Rev. 2:22 and
7:14 (cf. 3:10), where the great tribulation is referred to, but also in 1:9, where
tribulation is once again linked with Dan. 7:13 (cf. v. 7), and Dan. 2:28 (cf. v. 1,
‘“‘what must soon take place’’).
2. A second element is expressed by the phrase thlipseis tou Christou, the afflic-
tions of Christ. The OT statement, ““Many are the afflictions of the righteous’ (Ps.
34:19), is particularly applicable to the truly righteous One (Acts 3:14 f.), and so
it is possible to speak of “‘the afflictions of Christ’ (Col. 1:24, only here). It is not
only a question of the afflictions left over for the church, but also of the afflictions
which the Lord suffered in his unique — suffering (Col. 1:20, 22), with which the
church knows itself to be linked in its own affliction. Passages like 2 Cor. 1:5 (cf. wv.
4, 6); 4:10 (cf. v. 8) allow us to infer that the thought of such afflictions was implicit
in the proclamation of the passion of Christ. Both they and the whole of Christ’s
passion are under the divine “must” (dei; cf. W. Grundmann, 7 DNT II 22 ff.).
3. Only in the light of the two preceding concepts can we properly understand
the third concept which is contained in statements about the afflictions of believers.
(a) Believers are implicitly included in the eschatological thlipsis. They are ex-
posed to the tribulations (Matt. 24:9), especially hatred, betrayal and death. It is
above all the time of leading astray (cf. Matt. 24:4 f., 11, 24; — Lead Astray), the
time of testing (cf. peirasmos in Lk. 8:13, where the par. Matt. 13:21, Mk. 4:17
have thlipsis and didgmos; —- Tempt).
(b) Col. 1:24 (see above 2) makes it clear that Christians experience these
afflictions in solidarity with Christ’s passion. This is a familiar thought, especially
in Paul. All distress and affliction suffered by Christians, which are caused by the
pressure of the world on them, must always be understood in the light of this
solidarity. Only so can they be rightly explained and endured (cf. 2 Cor. 1:5 with
1:4, 6; cf. 4:10 f. with 4:8; cf. Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). Precisely for this reason
808
PERSECUTION
tribulation and all other distress cannot separate us from Christ (Rom. 8:35).
Because we are suffering with him in these distresses we shall be glorified together
with him (Rom. 8:17; cf. 8:37; cf. 1 Thess. 1:6, following Christ in affliction).
(c) The thlipsis does not come unexpectedly to the believer. Its connection with
the eschatological and christological tribulation discussed above, both of which
depend on the divine “‘must’”’, makes it a priori probable that the tribulations of
Christians are also conditioned by this “‘must’’. Moreover, this is stated several
times in the NT. Jn. 16:33 says, “‘in the world you have tribulation’’. ““Through
many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God’”’ (Acts 14:22) was the reason
why Paul and Barnabas exhorted the disciples to continue in the faith. It is perhaps
most clearly expressed in 1 Thess. 3:3, where Paul writes that he had sent Timothy
to exhort the church, “‘that no one be moved by these afflictions; you yourselves
know that this is to be our lot [eis touto keimetha]’ (cf. the eis touto keimetha with
eis touto gar ekléthéte, “for to this you were called’, 1 Pet. 2:21). The apostle
Paul had expected nothing else for his own life (1 Thess. 3:4; cf. Acts 20:23), and
had experienced it in full measure in his missionary work (2 Cor. 1:4, 6, 8; 2:4;
4:8, 17; 6:4-10; 7:4 f.; 11:16-12:10; Eph. 3:13; Phil. 1:17; 4:14; 1 Thess. 3:4, 7).
But it caused him —> joy, not grief: ““We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that
suffering produces endurance’ (Rom. 5:3; cf. Jas. 1:2 f.; —> Patience, art. hypomone).
(d) As a result the tribulation is already a reality in the NT situation. The church
in Jerusalem had experienced it (Acts 11:19), and it became a reality for other
churches, in Corinth (2 Cor. 1:4), Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:6; 3:3) and Macedonia
generally (2 Cor. 8:2). But these afflictions are determined, so far as believers are
concerned, by their goal in God’s plan of salvation. They are therefore never
purposeless, but produce — hope (Rom. 5:3 ff.). Just as a woman, who has given
birth to a child, no longer remembers the anguish in her joy (Jn. 16:21), so believers
have sorrow (Jn. 16:22) and tribulation (Jn. 16:33). But Jesus’ ‘‘be of good cheer”’
is no empty phrase, because he knows the righteousness of God which repays with
afflictron those who cause affliction, and grants — rest to the afflicted as compensa-
tion (2 Ness. 1:6 f.). R. Schippers
—> Abomination of Desolation, — Animal, art. thérion, — Antichrist, — Fruit,
art. skolops, -~ Judgment, —> Number, art. chilias (on the idea of a millennium),
—> Patience, — Present, — Satan, — Serve, — Suffer, — Time, — War, — Weak-
ness, —> Witness
(a). G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future: An Examination of the Eschatological Discourse,
Mark 13, with Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory, 1954; and A Commentary on
Mark Thirteen, 1957; W. Beilner, “‘Persecution”, EBT II 667 ff.; S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of
Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 1951; S. Brown Apostasy and Perseverence in the Gospel of
Luke, 1959; W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus, 1965; L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance
of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, Supplements to NovT 23, 1970; D. R. A. Hare,
The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St Mathew, 1967; I. H.
Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, 1969; A. Oepke,
didko, TDNT II 229 f.; H. Schlier, thlibé etc., TDNT III 139-48.
(b). N. Brox, Zeuge und Martyrer, 1961; E. Gittgemanns, Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr, 1966;
E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottesknecht, FRLANT 64, 1955; and Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens
Jesu Christi, 1964; W. Nauck, “‘Freude im Leiden. Zum Problem einer urchristlichen Verfolgungs-
tradition”, ZNW 46, 1955, 68-80; J. Schneider, Die Passionsmystik des Paulus, 1929; A. Steubing,
Der paulinischer Begriff Christusleiden, 1905; W. Wichmann, Die Leidenstheologie, 1930.
809
PHARISEE
Pharisee
| Papicaioc | (Pharisaios), Pharisee.
OT Pharisaioi is the Hellenized form of the Aram. word p*ri§ayya@ (Heb. paris;
from pdraS, to divide, separate), and means “‘the separated ones’’. It denotes the
representatives of an influential religious group in Judaism. The designation is only
attested in Hellenistic Judaism up till the time of the NT, but not at all in the LXX.
Rabbinic literature provides the first attestation of the word in the Aramaic-
speaking world, although it is frequently found in a negative sense. The word was
used in the Gk. form by Josephus and in the NT. The date of the appearance of
the designation can no longer be precisely fixed. The first occurrences are from the
time of Hyrcanus I (c. 135 B.c.). From the Ist cent. B.c. (under the reign of Alex-
andra [76-67 B.c.]) onwards, however, the Pharisees were in the public esteem, the
most respected and thus the leading group of Judaism.
1. Josephus, himself a Pharisee, came to speak of the movement in differing
ways in his writings. Perhaps in order to please his Hellenistic readers he called
them one of the many Jewish “‘philosophies’’, alongside the Essenes, —~ Sadducees
and the “‘fourth philosophy”’ (cf. War 2, 8, 2-14; Ant. 18, 1, 3-6). But much remains
unclarified for us in Josephus’ writings, including the meaning of the name. Since
the representatives of this group never called themselves by this name but spoke
of themselves rather as the h*bérim, the comrades of a h*biirdh, a society, the ques-
tion arises as to whether the designation Pharisaioi is not perhaps a nick-name
which the opponents gave to the exponents of that piety. The name implies separa-
tion, but it is not clear from what they were separated. Basically, three positions
are held.
(a) One view is that it is a group of the Hasidaioi Hasidim (Heb. h*sidim),' the
pious, separated from Judas Maccabaeus (cf. 1 Macc..2:42; 7:13; 2 Macc. 14:6).
Although they originally fought alongside the Maccabees against the Seleucids,
they later brought about the separation which this name gave them, as a protest
against the Hasmonaeans’ claims to political domination.
(b) The Pharisees originated out of the group of the h*bérim (‘‘confederates’’),
which separated itself c. 135 B.c. from the rest of the people who did not keep the
—> law, in order to follow exactly the individual prescriptions of the law. The name
thus goes back to the separation of a group of pious people true to the law from a
lawless — and thus godless — people.
(c) The name is a pun on the “separation’’, i.e. the distinction between the
individual prescriptions of the law. ““The law was the centre of their thought and
practical life and, in continually renewed applications and metaphors, was lauded
as Israel’s most precious and sacred garment” (H. Lietzmann, The Beginnings of
the Christian Church, 1953°, 30).
There is much to be said for the view that the group received their name through
understanding themselves as the fellowship which embodied the true — Israel and
distancing themselves from the rest of the nation (position (b)).
2. Essential to Pharisaism was the fact that it tried “by obedience to the
Law ...to represent the pure community, the true people of God preparing itself
810
PHARISEE
for the coming of the messiah”’ (E. Lohse, EKL III 181). Their views were sketched
by Josephus (War 2, 8; cf. also Pss.Sol. c. 60 B.c. which is Pharisaic in outlook).
Characteristic of their outlook are the following points.
(a) The legal prescriptions of Scripture were observed with minute attention to
detail (e.g. tithing all goods, attending to all the purificatory regulations, all the
sacred times laid down by God and the cultic actions). It is significant that the
Halachah, the body of legal decisions which interpreted the law, was reckoned to
be equally as binding as the biblical tradition. This is illustrated by Shammai’s
reply to the question, ““How many Toroth do you have?”: ““Two; the written
Torah and the oral Torah’’ (Shabbath 31a). Josephus reports “‘that the Pharisees
have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their
fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason the Saddu-
cees reject them, and say, that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory
which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the
tradition of our forefathers. And concerning these things it is that great disputes
and differences have risen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade
none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees
have the multitude on their side” (Ant. 13, 10, 6). The Pharisaic experts in the
Scripture, the “‘Scribes’’, gave a binding interpretation to the laws by way of ca-
suistic exegesis. This casuistry led in part to highly rarified controversial debates
and decisions between individual scholars. Thus food could not be cooked on the
—» Sabbath. But whereas the School of Shammai permitted water to be set on a
stove which had been previously heated, the School of Hillel permitted both hot
water and cooked food to be placed on it (Sabbath 3:1). Whereas fish might not be
caught from a vivarium on a festival day or have food given to them, wild animals
and birds could be so treated. ““This is the general rule: What must still be hunted 1s
forbidden, but what needs not to be hunted is permitted’’ (Yom Tob 3:1). Practic-
ally every area of human life came to be included and regulated by an abundance
of individual prescriptions. The Pharisees, however, did not wish to destroy the
law. Rather, they ‘sought by their interpretations to make the law fit the new
environs, believing as they did that God had provided for every circumstance that
could arise. In this they had no idea that they were introducing new notes, although
of course they were; they were simply discovering old truth” (M. S. Enslin,
Christian Beginnings, 1938, 115). The Pharisees set the people a good example in
keeping the law, in that they themselves in addition adhered to the strict purificatory
rites which were otherwise only binding for priests.
(b) By contrast with the Essenes, who emphasized the complete helplessness of
the human will over against God, and the Sadducees, who stressed the unlimited
freedom of the will, the Pharisees held firm to a conditional freedom of human
will. Man may well not be able to frustrate the will of God, but within the frame of
the divine plan he is able to do good or evil (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18, 1, 3; cf. Pss.
Sol. 5:6).
(c) The Pharisees took over the partly Persian and Hellenistic conceptions of the
—> resurrection (cf. Sanhedrin 10:1; Sotah 9:15), of a + judgment after death and
of supramundane beings (all of which had made large inroads into Judaism),
including very pronounced conceptions of — angels, the Devil (— Satan) and
intermediary beings. Whereas the Pharisees believed that they could read these
811
PHARISEE
doctrines out of the sacred writings, the Sadducees rejected the ideas as being
irreconcileable with the Holy Scriptures (cf. Acts 23:8).
(d) From the downfall of the Hasmonaeans the Pharisees, by contrast with the
Zealots, strictly renounced all use of force. God himself, through his intervention,
will give the decisive turn and liberate his people.
(e) The Pharisees awaited the messiah (— Jesus Christ, art. Christos), whereas the
Sadducees did not (cf. Pss.Sol. 17:23-18:9).
In that Pharisaism was sufficiently flexible to adjust itself to the conditions of a
changed way of life, it had become the most spiritually formative power in Judaism
at the time of Jesus. But with its preoccupation with the fulfilment of the laws,
Pharisaism was in fact an intensely narrow and rigid formalism.
NT In the NT the Pharisees are only named in the four Gospels (Matt. 27 times;
Mk. 12 times; Lk. 27 times; Jn. 19 times), Acts (9 times), and once in Paul
(Phil. 3:5), where Paul himself admits to having been ‘‘as to the law a Pharisee’’.
In Pharisaism Jesus met — Israel as it strove for true — faith and obedience
(— Hear, art. akoud) to God, but which had become totally hardened in formalism
and thus barred itself from precisely that for which it was searching — to please
God. Jesus and the Pharisees are consequently depicted in Matt., Mk. and Jn.
(with the exception of Nicodemus) as embittered opponents (cf. Mk. 3:6; 12:13;
Matt. 12:14; the woes of Jesus in Matt. 23; Jn. 3:1, 4,9; 7:50; 11:46 f., 57; 19:39).
1. It is a striking fact that Lk. does not generally represent the Pharisees as
inimical to Jesus. According to Lk., Jesus was a guest of distinguished Pharisees
and ate food at table with them (Lk. 7:36 f.; 11:37; 14:1). Lk. 13:31 even reports
that Pharisees warned Jesus of Herod’s attempts on his life. Pharisees were members
of the Christian community (Acts 15:5). It may be that the strained relationship
with Jesus subsequently became milder towards the church (cf. Acts 5:34; 15:5;
23:9). It is quite conceivable that Lk. slightly corrects the picture of the Pharisees in
his Gospel on the basis of the experiences of the first churches. The particular
Lucan material where Jesus is a guest of Pharisees, however, leads up to confronta-
tion in which Jesus makes certain pronouncements. The historicity of Lk.’s account
has been questioned on the grounds that the Pharisees would scarcely have invited a
wandering preacher to a meal when he violated their purificatory regulations so
blatantly (Lk. 11:38). It has also been asked why a man who is deemed worthy of
being invited to table should be denied all the customary courtesies of the kiss, the
anointing, and the foot-washing (Lk. 7:44f). To this the answer may be that
individual Pharisees (like Nicodemus in Jn. 3) were attracted to Jesus, but that their
background prevented them from extending the formal rites of fellowship and
acceptance to one who stood outside their number and was so critical of their
understanding of righteousness.
2. (a) The equation of oral tradition with the OT law led to serious divergences.
The nature of the difference is made clear only in the light of the two opposing
understandings of God. For the Pharisees, God is primarily one who makes
demands; for Jesus he is gracious and compassionate. The Pharisee does not, of
course, deny God’s goodness and love, but for him these were expressed in the
gift of the Torah and in the possibility of fulfilling what is there demanded (cf.
Aboth 3:14 ff.). Adherence to the oral tradition, with its rules for interpreting the
812
PHARISEE
law, was seen by the Pharisee as the way to the fulfilment of the Torah (cf. Mk. 7:3,
5; Matt. 12:2 ff.; 15:1 ff.). The individual prescriptions are here on a par with one
another. By contrast, in Matt. 12:7 Jesus cites Hos. 6:6 (‘I desire mercy and not
sacrifice’), and thereby grounds the entire interpretation of the law in the — com-
mand of — love (cf. Matt. 22:34-40; Mk. 12:28-34; Lk. 10:25-28). Since God
himself is the Loving One, all other commands are fulfilled in loving one’s neigh-
bour (cf. Jn. 8:3-11). Jesus’ elevation of the double command of love (Matt.
22: 34-40) to the level of a norm of interpretation and his rejection of the binding
nature of the oral tradition (cf. Lk. 11:38—42) led him into conflict with Pharisaic
casuistry (Matt. 15:1-20 par. Mk. 7:1—23; cf. Isa. 29:13; Lk. 6:7; 13:3-6; —
Hand; — Gift, art. korban).
(b) Jesus repudiated the exclusion by the Pharisees of the uneducated and no-
torious sinners (cf. Matt. 9:11; Mk. 2:16; Lk. 5:30) as lack of love. The Pharisees
were ostensibly concerned about the judgment of God, forgiveness, and about the
holy nation of Israel, but their attitude was the negative one of separation and
concern for the minutiae of the law. But Jesus sought to heal the injuries of his
people by bringing God’s love to the helpless and sick (cf. Matt. 9:12 ff.; Mk. 2:17).
The Pharisees ostensibly took God’s commands seriously, but their preoccupation
with fulfilling the commands exactly became an end in itself which prevented them
from entering the kingdom of God themselves and also from letting others enter it
(Matt. 23 :1-36; — Open).
(c) This segregation essentially led the Pharisees into a conflict between what the
Torah demanded and what they actually performed (see the Woes in Matt. 23).
The casuistic exegesis of the law with the consequent dissociation from everything
impure led them to a distinctly merit-based system of thought in which lay a
disastrous self-deception (— Reward, art. misthos). The Pharisees drew on them-
selves the accusation of hypocrisy with regard to men (— Lie, art. hypokrind) and
—> pride in relation to God (cf. Matt. 6:5, 16; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27 ff.; Lk. 19:10 ff.).
Their understanding of God and their resultant understanding of the law made
the Pharisees blind to the true offer and claim of God meeting them in Jesus (cf.
Matt. 23:26; Mk. 9:40). The tragedy was that the Pharisees earnestly sought God,
but, because a particular picture of God had hardened in their tradition, they
decided against Jesus (cf. Matt. 12:14 par. Mk. 3:6; cf. Lk. 6:11) and thus against
God (cf. Matt. 12:24-32; Lk. 11:43-54). Thus the Pharisee became in the NT
the type of an attitude which is by no means confined to Judaism. D. Miiller
—> Command, — Gift, art. korban, — Hand, — Herb, — Law, — Levite, — Lie,
Hypocrite, — Open, — Priest, —~ Sadducee, —> Tax, —> Tithe
(a). I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, I, 1917, II, 1924; B. W. Bacon, “‘Pharisees
and Herodians”’, JBL 39, 1920, 102-112; L. Baeck, The Pharisees, 1957; M. Black, ‘‘Pharisees’’,
IDB III 774-81; J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees, 1973; F. C. Burkitt, ‘“‘Jesus and the Pharisees’’,
JTS 28, 1927, 392-97; R. H. Charles, Religious Developments between the Old and New Testaments,
1914; W. D. Davies, Introduction to Pharisaism, 1967; J.D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament,
1970; and Jesus’ Audience, 1973; H. L. Ellison, ‘‘Jesus and the Pharisees”, Journal of the Trans-
actions of the Victoria Institute 85, 1953, 33-46; M. S. Enslin, Christian Beginnings, 1938; W. R.
Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus, 1961; J. Finkelstein, ‘“The Pharisees: Their Origin and
their Philosophy”, H7R 22, 1929, 185-261; The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of their
Faith, III, 19623; The Pharisees and the Men of the Great Synagogue, Texts and Studies of the
Jewish Theological—Seminary of America 15, 1950; and ‘“‘The Ethics of Anonymity among the
813
PHARISEE/PLEASE
Pharisees”’, Conservative Judaism 12, 1958, 1-12; W. Forster, Palestinian Judaism in New Testament
Times, 1964; T. F. Glasson, “‘Anti-Pharisaism in St. Matthew”, JOR 51, 1960-61, 316-20; F. C.
Grant, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, 19607; and Roman Hellenism and the New Testa-
ment, 1962, 132-47; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during
the Early Hellenistic Period, II], 1974; R. T. Herford, The Pharisees, 1929; M. D. Hussey, ‘“The
Origin of the Name Pharisee’’, JBL 39, 1920, 66-69; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus,
1969, 246-67; A. F. J. Klijn, “‘Scribes, Pharisees, Highpriests and Elders in the New Testament’’,
NovT 3, 1959, 259-67; J. Z. Lauterbach, ““The Pharisees and their Teachings”, Hebrew Union
College Annual 6, 1929, 69-139; T. W. Manson, “‘Sadducee and Pharisee: The Origin and Signifi-
cance of the Names’, B/JRL 22, 1938, 144-59; and The Servant-Messiah, 1953; R. Marcus,
*“‘Pharisaism in the Light of Modern Scholarship’’, JR 32, 1952, 154-64; and ‘Pharisees, Essenes
and Gnostics”’, JBL 73, 1954, 155-61; R. Meyer and H. F. Weiss, Pharisaios, TDNT IX 11-48;
G. F. Moore, ““The Rise of Normative Judaism’”’, HTR 17, 1924, 307-73, and 18, 1925, 1-38; and
Judaism (see index); J. Neusner, ‘““The Fellowship (hbwrh) and the Second Jewish Commonwealth’’,
ATR 53, 1960, 125-42; H. Odeberg, Pharisaism and Christianity, 1964; W. O. E. Oesterley, The
Jews and Judaism during the Greek Period: The Background of Christianity, 1941; C. Rabin,
Qumran Studies, 1955, 53-70; and ‘‘Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees”, Journal of Jewish
Studies 7, 1956, 3-11; D. W. Riddle, Jesus and the Pharisees, 1928; A. T. Robertson, The Pharisees
and Jesus, 1920; T. H. Robinson, “Jesus and the Pharisees’, ExpT 28, 1916-17, 550-54; C. Roth,
“The Pharisees in the Jewish Revolution of 66-73”, JSS 7, 1962, 63-80; S. Safrai, M. Stern, D.
Flusser and W. C. van Unnik, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century, Historical Geography,
Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, 1, 1974; Schtrer (see index);
R. A. Stewart, Rabbinic Theology. An Introductory Study, 1961; S. van Tilborg, The Jewish
Leaders in Matthew, 1972; S. Wine c) Phavisaien and Jesus, 1962; S. Zeitlin, ‘“The Pharisees and the
Gospels’’, Essays and Studies in Memory of L. R. Miller, 1938, 235-86.
(b). S. Abir, ‘‘Der Weg der Pharisder’’, Frefburger Rundschau 11, 1958-59, 29-34; L. Baeck,
Paulus, die Pharisder und das Neue Testament, 1961; W. Beilner, ‘““Der Ursprung des Phari-
saismus’’, BZ Neue Folge 3, 1959, 235-51; and Christus und die Pharisder. Exegetische Unter-
suchung tiber Grund und Verlauf der Auseinandersetzung, 1959; E. L. Dietrich, ‘‘Pharisder’’,
RGG* V 326 ff.; W. Foerster, “Der Ursprung des Pharisdéismus’, ZNW 34, 1935, 35-51;
W. Grundmann, “Die Pharisder’’, in J. Leipoldt and W. Grundmann, eds., Umwelt des
Urchristentums, I, 19677, 269 ff.; F. Heinrichs, Die Komposition der antipharisdischen und anti-
rabbinischen Wehe-Reden bei den Synoptikern, Dissertation, Munich, 1957; W. G. Kimmel,
“Jesus und die Rabbinen’’, in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 1 ff.; E. Lohse, ‘“‘Pharisaer’’,
EKL Ill 181 f.; J. C. Margot, “‘Les Pharisiens d’aprés quelques ouvrages récents’”’, Revue de
Théologie et de Philosophie, 3, '1956, 294-302; F. Merkel, ‘Jesus und die Pharisder’’, NTS 14,
1967-68, 194-208; R. Meyer, ““‘Die Bedeutung des Pharisdismus fiir Geschichte und Theologie
des Judentums”’, TLZ 77, 1952, 677-84; and Tradition und Neuschdépfung im antiken Judentum.
Dargestellt an der Geschichte des Pharisdismus, Mit einen Beitrag von H. F. Weiss, ‘‘ Der Phari-
saismus im Lichte der Uberlieferung des Neuen Testaments’, Sitzungsgsberichte der Sdachsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, philosophisch-historische Klasse, 110, 2, 1965; J. van
der Ploeg, “Jésus et les Pharisiens’, Mémorial Lagrange, 1950, 279-93; H. Rasp, ‘‘Flavius
Josephus und die jiidischen Religionsparteien”, ZNW 23, 1924, 27-47; J. Schmid, “‘Die Pharisder’’,
BuL 3, 1962, 270 ff.; K. Schubert, ‘““Die jiidischen Religionsparteien im Zeitalter Jesu’, in K.
Schubert, ed., Der historische Jesus und der Christus unseres Glaubens, 1962, 15 ff.; F. Sieffert,
‘“‘Phariséer und Sadduzder’”’, RE XV 264-92; M. Simon, Les Sectes Juives au Temps de Jésus,
1960; M. Weber, “Die Pharisder”’, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Religionssoziologie, III, 1921, 401-42;
J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisder und Sadduzder, 1924*.
Please
apéoK (aresk6), strive to please, accommodate, please;
P apeatdc (arestos), pleasing; apeoKeia (areskeia), the
desire to please; ebapeatoc (euarestos), acceptable, pleasing; ebapectéw (euarested),
814
PLEASE
please (someone), take pleasure in; av”Opm@ndapeckos (anthropareskos), one who
tries to please men, a man-pleaser.
CL areské comes from a root ar-, to fit (from which also comes areté, virtue), and
is originally cognate with Lat. arma, weapons, and ars, art. Attested from
Homer onwards, it denotes the pleasure which men or the gods derive from
something. From it are derived the adjs. arestos, pleasant, and euarestos, pleasing,
content (often attested in inscriptions). The noun areskeia, pleasure, grace, is
attested from Aristotle onwards. Formations peculiar to the LXX are euarested,
find pleasure, be content, and anthrdpareskos, someone who seeks to please men
(only in LXX Ps. 53:5[52:6] as a mistranslation of héndk, “She who encamps
against you’, perhaps through confusion with hén, grace). It is later found in
Pss.Sol. 4:7, 8, 19.
oT 1. In the LXX the vb. occurs some 60 times, the adj. arestos 33 times, as a
translation of good, be good; right, be right, often with “‘in the eyes of” added,
following the underlying Heb. text. In Dan. (e.g. 3:22) it translates §*par, be
beautiful, please (well). It occurs in the expressions “It pleases God...’ (Num.
23:27), and “‘the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to God” (Mal.
3:4). A word may be said to please someone, i.e. it meets with his approval, e.g.
the king and the assembly (2 Chr. 30:4), the king and his commanders (1 Macc.
6:60).
areskeia is only found in Prov. 31:30 as a translation of hén, grace, favour;
euarestos only in Wis. 4:10; 9:10. The vb. euarested, to please, to take pleasure in,
however, occurs 14 times, generally as translation of Heb. halak (in the hith.)
to walk (with God) (Gen. 5:22, 24; 6:9; 17:1; 24:40; 39:4; 48:15; Exod. 21:8;
Jdg. 10:16; Pss. 26[25]:3; 35[34]:14; 56[55]:13; 116[114]:9; Sir. 44:16). Gen.
5:24 is noteworthy here. In the Heb. text attention is directed to the deed of man,
expressed by a vb. of action (“Enoch walked with God’’), whereas the LXX
stresses God’s judgment (“Enoch pleased God’’).
2. In Josephus areské is found equally of God (it pleased God to make David
king, Ant. 6, 8, 1) as of men (King Hyrcanus will do everything that pleases God,
Ant. 13, 10, 5).
NT 1. In the NT aresko is found 17 times, of which 14 instances are in Paul and the
remaining three are in Matt., Mk. and Acts. The sole instance of areskeia is also
in Paul. In general areské denotes a definite attitude.
1. Paul’s use of the vb. three times in Rom. 15:1-—3 is noteworthy. Paul charges
the self-styled ‘‘strong”’ Christian with being concerned to please himself, i.e. in the
last analysis being self-centred (v. 1). The phrase heautois areskein “‘denotes the in-
version of human existence and evasion of God” (O. Michel, Der Brief an die
Romer, KEK 4, 19661°, 354, n. 4). This attitude of unrestrained self-trust is met by
Paul with the rejoinder that each person should please his neighbour for his good,
to build him up (v. 2). This does not mean seeking to please men in the sense of an
attitude which looks for approbation and recognition from others (cf. Eph. 6:6),
but enacting the will of God in the form of love for one’s neighbour, in the case of
the weak — brother. The basic direction of Christian conduct, which Paul appeals
to by aresko, is grounded in the attitude of Christ himself (v. 3), who did not live to
815
PLEASE
please himself, ouch heauto éresen. Rather, he assumed the attitude of the OT
servant of God (Ps. 69:9) who submitted himself in obedience towards God.
aresko in Paul is, therefore, a term which characterizes man in both a false or a
valid attitude to life. The apostle knows this from his own experience. Through his
conversion he has been freed from concern for the favour of men, for he stands
under the command of the Lord. He, therefore, wishes to live to please God and
Christ. Paul does not preach in order to please men, but God (1 Thess. 2:4).
Aligning himself with Christ and the goal set by Christ of saving all, Paul seeks to
live with the intention of pleasing Jews and Greeks alike; i.e. he lives for the benefit
of the many, that they may be saved (1 Cor. 10:33). The same thought lies behind
other passages where the vb. is not used, e.g. Rom. 12:17 f. and 1 Cor. 9:22 (on this
see H. L. Ellison, ‘“‘Paul and the Law — ‘All Things to All Men’ ”’, in W. W. Gasque
and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel, 1970, 195-202). The
Christian congregation must also see how they can please God (1 Thess. 4:1).
2 Tim. 2:4 adopts the picture of the soldier used elsewhere in Hellenistic moral
teaching (cf. 1 Cor. 9:7; Phil. 2:25; Phlm. 2). The soldier on active service does
not get himself involved in civilian life, but aims to please his commanding officer.
It is thus impressed upon the reader that he is not to let himself be diverted from
his work for Christ by concern about his earthly welfare. Similarly, the unmarried
man who is not tied by marital considerations can direct all his energy to gaining
Christ’s approbation and recognition (1 Cor. 7:32). On the other hand, “‘those
that are in the flesh [hoi de en sarki ontes| cannot please God’”’ (Rom. 8:8). Here
—» flesh signifies a self-centred existence guided by human considerations. It is the
antithesis of being led by the — Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:4f., 9, 11, 13, 16). It is defined
in terms of having the mind set on the flesh, being hostile to God, and not sub-
mitting to God’s law (Rom. 8:7). Its end is death (Rom. 8:6, 13). The Jews who
put Jesus and the prophets to death “displease God and oppose all men’ (1 Thess.
2:15).
2. The adj. arestos, pleasing, occurs 4 times in the NT. In Acts 12:3 the execution
of James is said to have been pleasing to the Jews. Elsewhere it is God who is the
object of the pleasing. The expression ouk areston estin, it is not right (i.e. before
God) (Acts 6:2) reflects LXX-Gk. usage. According to Jn. 8:29, Jesus always did
what was pleasing to God, 1.e. what was consonant with God’s will. arestos under-
lines once more the unity between the sent and the sender. Because Christians keep
God’s commandments and do what pleases him, they receive from him in —>
prayer whatever they ask (1 Jn. 3:22).
3. The vb. euaresteo, please (3 times in Heb.), and the adj. euarestos, pleasing,
(8 times in Paul and once in Heb.) also have God or Christ as their object, apart
from one exception (Tit. 2:9). Indirectly, even Tit. 2:9 does not deviate from this:
slaves are exhorted to be euarestoi to their masters, and so live to their satisfaction,
in order, as members of the church community, to give God glory by their conduct
and to please him (cf. Eph. 6:6). Children are exhorted to be obedient to their
parents, because that is pleasing to the Lord (Col. 3:20). Paul thanks the Philip-
pians for their gift, which is a — sacrifice pleasing to God (Phil. 4:18). The Chris-
tians in Rome are exhorted to offer their “living bodies as a holy sacrifice, truly
pleasing to God” (Rom. 12:1 f. JB; cf. Eph. 5:10). The Christian’s whole existence
is offered to God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:9). Anyone who serves (—» Serve; — Slave, art.
816
PLEASE
douleud) Christ in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy — Spirit pleases God
and is acknowledged by him (Rom. 14:18). Therefore, we must pray that God
may work in us through Christ that which is pleasing in his sight (Heb. 13:21).
Heb. 11:5 f. takes up Gen. 5:24 LXX. It is inferred from the fact that Enoch
pleased God (euarestékenai) that he was a believer; for without — faith one cannot
please God. (On Enoch see Jude 14f.; Eth.Enoch 1:9; 71:14; Sir. 44:16; Jub.
4:17; 10:17; Wis. 4:10 ff. [cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC 1964,
286-90). In the Christian life charity and acts of love are a “‘sacrifice”’ in which God
takes pleasure (Heb. 13:16).
4. areskeia only occurs in Col. 1:10. Paul prays that the Colossians may be filled
with the knowledge of God’s will, so that they may walk worthily of the Lord and
always please him.
5. anthropareskos is encountered only in the rule to — slaves (Eph. 6:6; Col.
3:22; cf. also 2 Clem. 13:1). Slaves are to obey their masters not in an adulatory
fashion, to please men, but in the fear of the Lord.
6. The words of this group are predominantly used in the NT to denote pleasure
in the sight of God or Christ which derives from a definite attitude. Even where
recognition from the side of men is meant, the gaze generally goes beyond men to
God whose pleasure should be sought. H. Bietenhard
[ebdonéo EvOOKEw (eudoked), be well pleased, regard favourably,
take delight in; evdoKia (eudokia), good will, good
pleasure, favour, wish, desire.
CL The vb. eudoked is a colloquial term from Hellenistic times (attested from the
3rd cent. B.c.). It is thought to be derived from the hypothetical eudokos,
formed from eu, good, and dechomai, to accept. In cl. Gk. it means to be well
pleased or content, to consent, approve; in the pass. to be favoured, i.e. prosper;
to find favour with. From the vb. the LXX has also formed the noun eudokia,
whereas cl. Gk. uses the noun eudokésis, satisfaction, approval, cohsent. The goal
of the Epicurean philosophy of life is the eudokoumené z6é, the life with which one
is content (Philodemus Philosophus, De Morte 30, 42; cf. G. Schrenk, TDNT II
740).
oT 1. (a) In the LXX eudokeo occurs some 60 times. Where there is an underlying
Heb. text, it generally trans. rasah, to take pleasure in, like, enjoy, decide upon,
elect, and denotes a passionate and positive volition. The godly man rejoices over
the sanctuary (1 Chr. 29:3; Ps. 102[101]:15), and in the works of truth (1 Esd.
4:39). One decides for Alexander Balas (1 Macc. 10:47), elects Simon as leader
(1 Macc. 14:41). One is lenient and indulgent (2 Chr. 10:7; Sir. 18:31). With a
negative it means to spurn (Hab. 2:4).
Yahweh takes pleasure in his people (Ps. 44[43]:4; 149:4), in a pious man (2
Sam. 22:20), in those who fear him (Ps. 147[146]:11). A man prays that it may
please Yahweh to deliver him (Ps. 40[39]:13). On the other hand, Yahweh has no
pleasure in the calf (i.e. the strength) of a man’s leg (Ps. 147[146]:10), nor in
anyone who does evil (Mal. 2:17). A penitent mind is more pleasing to Yahweh
than a — sacrifice (Ps. 51:16 ff.[50:18 ff.]; Jer. 14:12).
817
PLEASE
(b) The noun eudokia occurs 25 times (only in Pss., Cant., | Chr., Sir.). In 8
places it is a translation of Heb. rdsén (56 times in MT), good-pleasure, grace, the
will of God (40 times in MT). eudokia can denote the will or pleasure of man (cf.
Ps. 141[140]:5; Sir. 8:14; 9:12), but also the divine good-pleasure, God’s grace
and blessing (Ps. 5:13; 51:19[50:21]; 89[88]:17; Ps.Sol. 8:22). Sir., in particular,
displays the tendency to use eudokia to render Heb. rasén, in order to describe God’s
good pleasure, his gracious will, activity and election (e.g. Sir. 1:27; 11:17; 15:15
et al.). eudokia denotes the divine purpose or determination in, e.g. Sir. 33:13;
36:13; 39:18.
2. The linguistic usage of Judaism corresponds with that of the OT. In the for-
mula ‘“‘to do God’s good pleasure’ which occurs frequently among the Rabbis,
the Heb. rds6n denotes God’s will. The expression “‘well-pleasing in God’s sight’’,
stemming from courtly language, is also common. In prayer the formula “May it be
pleasing in thy sight’’, 1.e. may it be thy will, is used. This corresponds exactly with
the expression used by Jesus in Matt. 11:26: eudokia egeneto emprosthen sou, “‘it
was well-pleasing in your sight” (cf. Matt. 18:14; Lk. 10:21; 12:32; Ber. 7d; Targ.
Cant. 7:14; Tg.O.Gen. 28:17; Num. 14:8; G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 1902,
211). But the expression can also denote human good pleasure.
3. The Dead Sea Scrolls speak of “‘all the sons of his [or your, i.e. God’s] good
pleasure” (1QH 4:33; 11:9), or of “‘the elect of [the divine] good pleasure” (1QS
8:6). ras6n in the sense of will likewise occurs frequently (1QH 10:2, 6, 9; 14:13;
16:10; 4QpPs 37:2, 5). Parallel expressions are “‘the elect of heaven” (1QM 12:5),
and ‘‘the elect of righteousness” (1QH 2:13). ‘““Good-pleasure is a term of electing
and predestinarian thought” (J. Maier, Die Texte vom Toten Meer, II, 1960, 105).
It is thus not a matter of the good will of men, but of the men whom God has
elected — specifically, the members of the Qumran community.
NT 1. eudokeo is found 21 times in the NT, including 11 times in Paul and 3 times
each in Matt. and Heb., but never in the Johannine writings. eudokia occurs 9
times, including 6 times in Paul, twice in Lk. The vb. is used of human beings in
7 places, the noun in two.
2. In a number of passages it is man who Is the subject. Thus, the congregations
of Macedonia decided to make a collection for the parent community of Jerusalem
(Rom. 15:26 ff.). Paul considered it preferable to be away from the body and be at
home with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8; — Flesh; — Body, art. soma). He took pleasure
in his + weakness for the sake of Christ (2 Cor. 12:10). He was ready to share not
only the gospel with the church at Thessalonica but his own self (1 Thess. 2:8). He
decided to stay behind in Athens alone (1 Thess. 3:1). All those who have found
pleasure in unrighteousness will be judged (2 Thess. 2:12). In Rom. 10:1 Paul says
that it is his heart’s wish and his prayer that the Jews may be saved, i.e. that they
may come to faith in Jesus. During Paul’s time in prison, some people preached
Christ out of jealousy and rivalry, but others because they were well-disposed
towards Paul (Phil. 1:15).
3. (a) In all other passages it is God’s purpose, resolve and choice that is spoken
of. God has no pleasure in (ouk eudokésas) sacrifice (Heb. 10:6, 8; cf. Ps. 40:6 ff.),
and those who shrink back (Heb. 10:38; cf. Hab. 2:4). But Christ does the will of
God as the One who offers himself as a sacrifice and so gains God’s good pleasure.
818
PLEASE
It is God’s purpose to give the kingdom to the little flock (Lk. 12:32). God decided
to reveal Jesus Christ to Paul (Gal. 1:15), and to save believers by the folly of the
preaching of the — cross (1 Cor. 1:21; —» Redemption, art. sdzd). God had no
pleasure in the majority of the Israelites in the —> wilderness period, and he re-
pudiated them (1 Cor. 10:5). God has decided that all the — fullness of the God-
head should dwell in Christ (Col. 1:19).
(b) At the baptism of Jesus God’s voice sounded out from heaven: “‘This is my
beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17 par. Mk. 1:11; but cf.
Lk. 3:22; cf. Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1; Gen. 22:2; 2 Pet. 1:17). According to Matt. 17:5,
this voice resounded with the same words at Jesus’ transfiguration (cf. Matt. 12:18).
Here, too, it is a case of God’s choice and determination, by which he has installed
Jesus as messiah. eudokia in Matt. 11:26 describes the transcendent purpose of
God (see above oT 2).
(c) The best-known place in the NT where eudokia occurs is Lk. 2:14. One
should here retain the reading en anthropois eudokias as the original. The expression
corresponds with the phrases adduced above from the Dead Sea Scrolls (see above
oT 3). The phrase refers to the men of God’s good pleasure whom God has elected
in order to bring them his salvation, Christ. The song of the angels proclaims a
divine event and activity: God has sent the Christ to earth. For this he is glorified
in heaven; the effect on earth is peace. In the birth of the Christ — peace, i.e.
eschatological fulfilment, the kingdom of God, begins on earth. We are not,
therefore, dealing here with the good will of men, as if they somehow approved of
or contributed to this event. However much men are affected as recipients of
salvation, the angels’ announcement was not directed at those who were at the
time well-intentioned. The “‘men of good will’? ought to disappear entirely from
Bible translations and Christmas meditations! Rather, we are dealing with God’s
sovereign and gracious will, which elects for itself a people for salvation and
sanctification (— Man, art. anthropos NT 1; cf. E. Vogt, “ ‘Peace Among Men of
God’s good Pleasure’ Lk. 2:14’, in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New
Testament, 1958, 114-7). J. C. O’Neill wishes to support the translation ‘“‘Glory be
to God on high, and in earth peace, good will towards men’’, but his case involves
an emendation of the text which treats “‘peace’’ as an early gloss on eudokia
(“Glory to God in the Highest, And on Earth?’’, in J. R. McKay and J. F. Miller,
eds., Biblical Studies: Essays in Honour of William Barclay, 1976, 172-77).
(d) In the hortatory passage Phil. 2:13 f. Paul summons the congregation to
work out their salvation in fear and trembling, because God is at work in them,
‘inspiring both the will and the deed, for his own chosen purpose [hyper tés
eudokias].”’ This is probably the best translation, for God has chosen the believers
and continues to work in them, so that his elective purpose also reaches its goal.
The passage brings together the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.
In Eph. 1:5, 9, 11 eudokia is synonymous with theléma or boulé, — will, and pro-
thesis, design, plan, purpose (—> Foreknowledge). Believers have a place in God’s
eternal will and election which have salvation as their goal. God’s free grace is
the central point of the statements. The concise formulation in the prayer of 2
Thess. 1:11 plérdsé pasan eudokian agathosynés (lit. “fulfil all good will for good-
ness’’) probably also means God’s elective purpose directed towards the conduct of
Christians. Paul therefore prays at the same time that God’s will may be done and
819
PLEASE/POOR
reach its goal]. But it is also possible to understand it as referring to the will of men:
“may fulfil every good resolve’? (RSV). H. Bietenhard
(a). W. Foerster, areskd etc., TDNT I 455 ff.; G. Schrenk, eudoked etc., TDNT II 738-51; E. Vogt,
‘* “Peace Among Men of God’s Good Pleasure’ Lk. 2:14’’, in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the
New Testament, 1958, 114-17.
(b). C. H. Hunzinger, ‘“‘Neues Licht auf Lk. 2, 14 anthrdpoi eudokias’, ZNW 44, 1952-53, 85 ff.;
J. Jeremias, “Anthropoi eudokias”’, ZNW 28, 1929, 13-20; H. Schiirmann, Das Lukasevangelium,
Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 3, 1, 1970, 113 ff.
Poor
| TEV | TMEV (penés), poor; MEvLy pdc (penichros), poor.
CL Through its root penés is linked with ponos, — burden, trouble. From Xen.
onwards it refers to the man who cannot live from his property, but has to
work with his hands. Hence the penés is not like the — ptochos, who is poor enough
to be a beggar and needs help. He is only relatively poor; the opposite of penés is
plousios, wealthy (— Possessions). The term includes the handworker and small
peasant, who, subsequent to Solon’s legislation, were the main supporters of the
Athenian democracy.
For a long time security through property was considered to be the best guaran-
tee of a virtuous life, while penia, poverty, was considered to be the root of moral
offences, a view found as late as Plato (Laws, 11, 919b). Not later than the time of
Socrates this concept was realized to be inadequate, for experience shows that it
may in fact be penia that creates the will for culture (cf. Diogenes quoted by Stob.
Ecl. 5, 783), and so may lead to virtue, which is the true ideal in life. By the art of
self-sufficiency (autarkeia; cf. Epict., Dissertationes 4, 6, 3 ff.; — Suffice) a life in
poverty can be rich and free (Plut., De Vitando Aere Alieno 3; 6; De Virtute et
Vitio 4). No religious value was attributed to poverty.
oT 1. In the LXX penés is used some 50 times, and its synonym penichros 3 times.
It is used only 6 times for ras (2 Sam. 12:1, 3, 4; Eccl. 4:14; 5:7; Ps. 82[81]:3),
which is nearest to the basic meaning of the Gk., although rds is found 21 times in
all. Normally penés is used for the economically and legally oppressed. It is used
29 times for ’eby6n: 15 times in the Pss. (e.g. 72:4, 13; 86:1; 109:31), and even
more clearly in Amos 2:6; 4:1; 5:12; 8:4, 6; Ezek. 18: 12. It is used 12 times for
‘ani (e.g. Ps. 9:12, 18; 72:12; Deut. 24:14 f.), and 9 times for dal (e.2. 1 Sam. 2:8).
Since these words are also rendered by — ptdchos, which is preferred for ‘ani and
dal and which is also used 11 times for ’eby6n, it is clear that the definite difference
that existed in Gk. life between the one who needs alms (ptdchos) and the one who
is forced into manual work or who has limited means (penés) has been obscured.
Even if this development may in part be due to the relative similarity of meaning in
the Heb. equivalents, its deeper reason. will have to be sought in the Israelite con-
cept of property and social order. In the long run poverty could be created almost
only by unrighteousness, i.e. the failure of the community and disobedience to
God. penichros occurs at Exod. 22:24 (‘Gni); Prov. 28:15; 29:7 (dal).
820
PooR
2. There follow two lines of semantic development. Hellenized Judaism clearly
tends to follow the normal Gk. meaning of penés: e.g. ptdchos is not to be found in
Philo, who in contrast to the LXX even translates ‘dni in Lev. 19:10 and 23:22 by
penés instead of ptdchos (Virt. 90). By so doing he employs the less offensive,
politer term for poor, and thus makes the Bible more suitable for Gk. ears, but
in so doing deprives it of an important stress.
NT In contrast, the NT, following OT thought but not the LXX’s choice of words,
has clearly decided on — ptochos, so as to show not merely a man’s standing in
society but especially his standing before God, for he has nothing to bring him.
penés occurs only in 2 Cor. 9:9 in a quotation from Ps. 112:9 (“He scatters abroad,
he gives to the poor; his righteousness endures for ever’), even though the reference
shows that the Heb. ’ebyén must refer to those needing help. penichros is found
only in Lk. 21:2, of the widow at the temple treasury, who was visibly poor. The
par. in Mk. 12:42 uses ptochos. L. Coenen
ay, ItTwWYOC (ptochos), poor; NtMyEv@ (ptdcheud), be poor,
i ee beg; ztwyeia (ptocheia), poverty.
CL 1. ptéchos (Homer onwards) belongs to the root pfé, crouched together (cf.
ptésso, be afraid; ptossd, duck in fear; ptdx, timid). It signifies utter dependence
on society. As an adj. it means begging, dependent on the help of strangers, poor
as a beggar, poor. Commoner still is its use as a noun meaning beggar. It stands in
contrast to plousios, rich, owning property. Secular Gk. has the metaphorical
meanings of meagre, inadequate, scanty, unable, conceding something (first
attested in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, flourished 30-10 B.c.). Its most important
derivatives are: ptdcheud, beg, live the life of a beggar, be destitute; ptdcheia,
activity of a beggar, begging, destitution, poverty.
2. In early Gk. thought poverty was not considered to have religious value. It
did not give a man any special standing before the gods, nor did it place him under
their special protection. Charity, especially to those impoverished by the blows of
fate, was considered a virtue when exercised by the propertied classes, because it
was useful to society, but it was not regarded as a religious or ethical act. There
was no public care for the poor. In later Gk. philosophy poverty was regarded by
some as a favourable precondition for virtue. The highest goal of life was to live
virtuously in all material conditions including poverty.
oT 1. In the LXX ptoéchos (some 100 times) is used for the following five Heb. words.
In the first four it is virtually synonymous with — penés.
(a) ‘ani (37 times), oppressed, poor, humble, lowly (e.g. Lev. 19:10; 2 Sam.
22:28; Job 29:12; Pss. 10:9[9:30]; 12[11]:5; Isa. 3:14 f.). Koehler-Baumgartner
connect it with ‘anah, afflict, oppress, humble (719 ff.). Where economic dependence
is implied, the terms under (b) and (c) may be linked with it. Where there is no
specific mention of an oppressor, the word becomes generally synonymous with
the socially poor, with those without land. That such poverty had been caused by
disinheritance or unlawful injury and not by the person’s own fault is shown by its
being contrasted with violence, not riches. It is, therefore, understandable that
82]
POOR
Yahweh, the Judge of Israel, protects these poor (see below 2 and 3) and they
place their sole trust and hope in this (— Humility, art. prajs OT).
(b) dal, low, weak, poor, thin (22 times), especially in Amos (2:7; 4:1; 5:11;
8:4, 6), Pss. (e.g. 72[71]:13; 82[81]:3; 113[112]:1) and Prov. (e.g. 19:4[1], 17;
28:3, 8, 15). dal means physically weak, and is then used of the position of the
lowest social classes, of the peasants as poor, needy, unimportant.
(c) ’ebydn, in want, needy, poor (11 times). This is nearest to the conventional
meaning of ptochos and means one seeking alms, a beggar. It is then used generally
for the very poor and homeless. The linked ‘ani w®’eby6n, poor and needy,
especially in the Pss., connotes the attitude of one praying to God (7 times, e.g.
Ps. 35[34]:10; 86[85]:1; LXX ptéchos kai penés). The one who prays belongs to
God and so comes before him in entreaty.
(d) ras, in want, poor (11 times). This is used purely in a social and economic
sense, poor, needy, in want. It is sometimes translated by — penés (cf. 2 Sam.
12:3). It is a favourite word in the wisdom literature; in Prov. it is used especially
as a contrast to rich (e.g. 13:8; 14:20; cf. also 17:5; 19:7, 22; 22:2, 7; 28:6, 27).
(e) In the latest OT writings miskén, a term still used by the Oriental beggars
for themselves, is used in Eccl. 4:13, 9:15 f. for the dependent, the socially lower (cf.
Exod. 1:11]: lit. “‘the cities of base service’); it takes the place of ‘ani after it had
received its weakened meaning of poor. Only in Sir. 30:14 is it translated by ptdchos.
Its derivative miskénut (Deut. 8:9) is rendered by ptécheia, poverty.
In the light of the Heb. terms it translates, ptochos in the LXX has widened its
meaning, especially in the social, economic and religious spheres.
2. Because Israel’s land is Yahweh’s land, there may be no continuing poverty
among his people. Hence the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22-23:19) lays
down the following programme, which in principle was always valid in Israel,
even if it was seldom carried out:
(a) The Israelite who as a result of economic need had to sell himself in payment
of debt was to be freed in the sabbatical year (Exod. 21:2).
(b) In the sabbatical year, when the ground was allowed to lie fallow, its produce
belonged to the poor (Exod. 23:10 f.).
(c) It was forbidden to exploit or oppress the poor (Exod. 22: 22-27).
(d) The law may not be perverted against the poor (Exod. 23:6 ff.). Yahweh
himself proclaimed himself the protector of the poor (Exod. 22:27b), and reminded
Israel of how he freed from Egypt, thus ending his position of dependence there
(Exod. 22:21; 23:9).
3. Under the monarchy the economy changed from one of barter to one using
money, and many of the farmers became financially dependent on townsmen. This
impoverishment of a wide stratum of the population was felt not merely as a major
social problem but also as a religious one, for it involved a breach of the divine law.
The eighth-century prophets especially attacked this social injustice in the name of
Yahweh, and in particular the oppression of the farmers and the poor, threatening
with the judgment of God the rich who were responsible (e.g. Amos 2:7; 4:1;
5:11; 8:4; Isa. 3:14 f.; 5:8 f.; 10:2; Mic. 2:2; 3:2 ff.).
Only in the setting of this historical situation can we understand the meaning
in the Psalms of “‘poor’’, “‘needy’’. The poor man is the one who suffers injustice;
he is poor because others have despised God’s law. He therefore turns, helpless
822
Poor
and humble, to God in prayer, not only for his own need, but also in the con-
sciousness that ultimately it is a question of God’s glory. Through the self-identi-
fication, generation after generation, of those who prayed with the poor in psalms
of individual lamentation and thanksgiving (e.g. Pss. 25:16; 40:17(MT 40:18);
69:29(MT 69:30); 86:1; 109:22) there gradually developed the specific connota-
tion of “poor” as meaning all those who turn to God in great need and seek his
help. God is praised as the protector of the poor (e.g. Pss. 72:2, 4, 12 ff.; 132:15),
who procures justice for them against their oppressors (Pss.9; 10; 35; 74; 140).
Deuteronomy offers a plan of social reformation, based on legislation of the
wilderness period. It has its own rules for the protection of the poor (e.g. Deut.
15:1-18; 24:14-22). However, the word ptdchos does not appear, for — “‘brother”’
is used as a technical term for one’s impoverished fellow-citizen.
Ezekiel in exile saw the coming destruction of the rump-kingdom of Judah as
Yahweh’s punishment for their oppression of the poor and needy (Ezek. 22:29).
The misery of the exile led temporarily to the use of “poor” and ‘‘needy’’ as
collective terms for the people. They are found in a number of hopeful eschatolo-
gical promises about the future of the people (e.g. Isa. 29:19; 41:17; 49:13; 51:21 ff.;
54:11 ff.; 61:1-4).
The many reflections and varying pronouncements of the wisdom literature on
the poor are much less religious in tone. They vary from explanations of poverty
as the fault of those who suffer it (e.g. Prov. 6:6-11; 23:21), and warnings against
it (Sir. 40:28), to the praise of the poor and a call to improve their lot (Sir. 10:30;
Prov. 14:31).
4. All the main lines of OT thought occur again in Rabbinic Judaism, both
concerning material poverty and its alleviation and its spiritualization and religious
classification. The following points should be noted:
(a) The ritual practice of great voluntary acts of charity throughout Palestine
and the Diaspora. The groups of the Pharisees, Essenes and the Hellenistic Jews
of Jerusalem had their special forms of charitable work, e.g. feeding the poor,
clothing the naked (cf. SB IV 536-558 on private charity in early Judaism).
(b) There was an excellent organization of care for the poor in the synagogue
communities which went as far as founding hospices. This was the more remarkable
as there is no trace of a programme of social equality in it. It was rooted in the
ethical commandments of the OT and was made possible by the temple — tax,
and after the destruction of Jerusalem by the weekly public alms (— Serve, art.
diakoneo OT 2; cf. Taanith 24a). In fact, fairly clear norms were laid down for the
contributions expected from synagogue members; they can be traced back with
certainty to the period before the destruction of the temple. The poor were expected
to contribute (Shekalim 1:7; 2:5) to demonstrate their religious equality (SB II
46), though they were the first to profit from individual and synagogue care for the
poor. Priests and Levites without estates, foreigners, widows and orphans could
expect to receive the tithes for the poor to be paid at the end of every third year (cf.
Deut. 14:29; 26:12). These continued to be collected and gained greater importance
after the destruction of Jerusalem.
5. Considerable variations of opinion are to be found in the spiritual judgments
on poverty.
(a) Especially the Psalms of Solomon among the pseudepigraphic writings
823
POOR
reserve the term “‘poor’’ for those who have experienced divine acts of deliverance
and are hence identical with the righteous (cf. Pss.Sol. 5:2, 11; 10:6; 15:1; 18:2).
Heavy material burdens and martyrdom are generally included.
(b) The community of the “poor” in Qumran made renunciation of private
property a rule of the order, and built up a well-organized community life in
expectation of eschatological salvation. 1QpHab. 12:3, 6, 10; 4QpPs. 37; 2:10
show that they had chosen the term ‘‘poor’’ for themselves. The Hymns (1QM)
frequently use the phrase ‘‘poor and needy’’. In their writings they attacked the
priests who exploited the poor. (See further E. Bammel, TDNT VI 896-99;
— Possessions, art. ploutos OT 3.)
(c) The dominant Rabbinic theology ultimately denied that poverty had any
theological value. Occasionally it even saw the cause of poverty in lack of knowledge
of the Torah, the one real poverty (cf. Nedarim 4la; and in contrast the first
beatitude in Matt., see below NT 2 (b)). This led to a feeling of moral superiority
over the poor. In striking contrast to this a form of popular eschatology clung to
the belief “that the poor ... are the primary objects of the divine mercy” (TDNT
VI 902; cf. Exod.R. 31, 13 on 22:24). Such belief fostered the danger of idealizing
poverty.
NT 1. ptéchos occurs 34 times in the NT, mostly in the Gospels (24 times; of these
10 times in Lk., 6 times in material peculiar to him); ptdcheia, poverty, 3 times;
ptdcheud, be poor, only in 2 Cor. 8:9.
1. The Gospels. (a) ptéchos occurs in its lit. sense in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus
told the rich man who wanted to inherit eternal life, ““Sell what you have, and give
to the poor” (Mk. 10:21; cf. Lk. 18:22). Matt. 19:21 qualifies the saying by
inserting the condition, “If you will be perfect.” In Mk. 12:41-44 par. Lk. 21:14
Jesus says that the apparently negligible gift of the poor woman, entitled to support,
is far greater than those of the rich. Only in the events leading up to the Passion
does Jesus in Mk. 14:7, Matt. 26:11, Jn. 12:8 say that almsgiving has to take
second place, when it is a question of a last opportunity for an extravagant act of
love to one destined to death (Matt. 26:11; Mk. 14:7; Jn. 12:8).
(b) Jesus speaks of the poor in Matt. 11:5 and in the first beatitude (Matt. 5:3;
Lk. 6:20). The question of the original form is disputed, as is the question whether
the saying was taken from Jewish tradition. There is much to be said for the view
that the shorter Lucan form (“‘Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of
God’’) is original, though not the use of the second person (cf. Matt. 5:3: “Blessed
are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’’). Matt. gives an inter-
pretative paraphrase which brings out the Heb. meaning. ,
Neither passage uses “‘poor”’ in the general social meaning. The enlarged form
in Matt., “‘the poor in spirit [hoi ptochoi to pneumati]’’, brings out the OT and Jewish
background of those who in affliction have confidence only in God (cf. Pss. 69[68]:
28 f., 32 f.; 37[36]:14; 40[39]:18; Isa. 61:1; Pss.Sol. 10:7; 1QM 14:7; 1QS 4:3;
cf. D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 110f.; and Greek Words and Hebrew
Meanings, 1967, 234, 251). In Lk. the beatitudes are essentially confined to poverty,
the poor, those who weep, the hungry, the hated, and are followed by woes over
the rich (Lk. 6:24 ff.). By using the 2nd person plur., Lk. indicates that the poverty
of the beatitudes is that caused by — discipleship. For he who believes in the Son
824
Poor
finds all the — promises of God for the poor and suffering, miserable and humble
(e.g. Isa. 57:15; 61:1), for those who weep (Ps. 126:5f.) and are hungry (Isa.
49:10; Ezek. 34:29) fulfilled in him. In the same way Jesus is proclaimed in Matt.
11:5 par. Lk. 7:22 (a quotation from Isa. 61:1) as the fulfiller of the longing of the
OT for salvation. His acts find their culmination in the proclamation of the gospel
to the poor. (— Blessing, art. makarios.)
(c) Luke records this quotation from Isa. 61:1 at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry
as a programme (Lk. 4:18). It occurs in the words that Jesus read in the synagogue
at Nazareth. In Lk. this dominant theme of poverty is linked with a sharp attack
on the rich (Lk. 6:24 ff.; + Possessions). According to Lk., Jesus told the man who
had invited him to a meal (Lk. 14:12 ff.) to invite the poor and others from whom
no repayment could be expected, and promised him an eschatological reward for
so doing. Similarly the poor are the first substitute guests at the great banquet
(Lk. 14:21).
Lazarus (lit. “God helps’’) is the type of the poor whom God receives (Lk.
16:20, 22), and the anonymous rich man who failed in his duty to him ts the type
of those condemned by God (cf. Lk. 12:13-21; see further J. D. M. Derrett,
“Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings’’, in Law in the New Testament,
1970, 78-99). When Zacchaeus gave the half of his goods to the poor after his
conversion (Lk. 19:8) his gratitude showed itself in concern for the poor (cf.
Derrett, ““The Anointing at Bethany and the Story of Zacchaeus’’, op. cit., 266-85).
A.-H. Esser
(d) The Synoptic Gospels, in particular, depict Jesus’ way of life as one of self-
chosen poverty. This is highlighted by the reply that he gave to a would-be disciple:
‘“Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere
to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20 par. Lk. 9:58). The — disciples left all in order to
follow him (Matt. 4:18-22 par. Mk. 1:16-20, Lk. 5:1-11; Jn. 1:35-51; cf. also
Lk. 13:33). The sale of his — possessions and a life of discipleship in poverty were
demanded of the rich young ruler as the precondition of eternal life (Matt. 19:16-
22; Lk. 18:18-24). On the missions on which the disciples were sent they were to
go without possessions or provisions (Matt. 10:1—16; Lk. 9:1-6; 10:1-12; — Bag,
art. péra). In this way of life there was in fact a double separation: from possessions
and from family ties (Matt. 10:37 ff.; Lk. 14:25-33). The life-style which Jesus
adopted for himself and called his disciples to adopt was one which exemplified
the Sermon on the Mount, especially the Beatitudes. But the particular emphasis
on poverty characterized by lack of possessions and cutting loose from family ties
suggests that Jesus identified himself with the poor in the Beatitude. His whole way
of life was thus a conscious identification with the poor and the OT concept of
poverty. In itself this was an act of loving compassion. At the same time it was a
life which deliberately chose to cast itself on the care of the Father. But in doing
so, Jesus was also putting to the test the people of Israel. By being confronted by
Jesus in this way the responsiveness of Israel faced its supreme test. (— Possessions
and the various sayings and parables of Jesus examined under the various key
words.) C. Brown
2. James strongly attacks the attitude of the rich both in public and in church
services (2:2 f., 6 f.) and demands equal esteem for the poor. He bases his position
825
POOR
on the facts that God “has chosen those who are poor in the world” (2:5), and
that mercy towards men on earth will be the criterion in the final judgment (2:13;
cf. Matt. 25:31-46).
3. In the letters to the churches of Smyrna in Rev. 2:9 and Laodicea in Rev.
3:17 (— Cold, art. psychros NT) the contrast between poor and rich shows the
difference between men’s estimate and that of the glorified Lord (1:9 ff.). Rev.
13:16 describes how all social and economic classes, rich and poor alike, are
captured by the hypnotic power of the beast from the abyss (— Animal, art.
thérion). H.-H. Esser
4. Paul made only occasional use of the concept, although he was deeply con-
cerned for the poor.
(a) The poor are mentioned in the lit. sense in connection with the collection
for the church in Jerusalem. ‘“‘The poor of Jerusalem’? was perhaps a name which
they had acquired (cf. Rom. 15:26, where “‘of the saints’ is added; cf. also Gal.
2:10). In Rom. 15:26 Paul speaks of the ‘‘some contribution” (RSV, lit. > “some
fellowship’’, koinonian tina) which the churches of Macedonia and Achaia were
making. ““They were pleased to do it, and indeed they are in debt to them, for if the
Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of
service to them in material blessings’ (Rom. 15:27). Paul himself was going to
Jerusalem with it diakondén tois hagiois (lit. “‘serving the saints’’), prior to going
to Spain (Rom. 15:25; cf. vv. 24, 28; 1:10 ff.; Acts 19:21), although he was aware
of the personal risk because of Jewish antagonism in Judea (v. 31). In 1 Cor. 16:1-4
Paul gives various recommendations about the collection, suggesting (as he did to
the churches of Galatia, v. |), that they put something aside on the first day of the
week (v. 2), and proposing on his arrival “‘to send those whom you accredit by
letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem”’ (v. 3), and, if it seems advisible, to go himself
as well (v. 4).
It would seem that the Corinthians did not follow these instructions, for Paul
returns to the question in 2 Cor. 8 and 9, which some scholars hold to be separate
letters which were subsequently incorporated into 2 Cor. Evidently a year had
elapsed and the collection was not much further advanced (2 Cor. 8:10). Paul,
therefore, sent Titus to complete the work (vv. 6, 15 f., 23; cf. 9:5) together with
two men perhaps appointed by the Jerusalem church (vv. 18 f., 22 f.; cf. 9:5).
Possibly the men referred to here were the same as those appointed by the council
at Jerusalem to communicate its decisions (Acts 15:20). Paul writes “‘not as a
command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine”’
(v. 8). Moreover, he sets before them the example of Christ: ““For you know the
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake be
became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich [hoti di’ hymas epto-
cheusen plousios 6n, hina hymeis té ekeinou ptocheia ploutéséte|’ (v. 9; on this verse
see below (c)).
In 2 Cor. 9:1-4 Paul expresses the hope that his boasting about the Corinthians
to the churches of Macedonia and Achaia will not prove vain in view of the possi-
bility of a meagre response. He has sent on the brethren “‘to arrange in advance
this gift you have promised, so that it may be ready not as an exaction but as a
willing gift’ (v. 5). He reminds them that “‘he who sows sparingly will also reap
826
POOR
sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must
do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God
loves a cheerful giver’ (vv. 6 f.; cf. Prov. 22:8 LXX). This is further reinforced by a
quotation from Ps. 112:9 (v. 9). Paul sees the response to the needs of the poor as a
free expression of obedience and gratitude: “‘Under the test of this service, you
[v.l. they] will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of
Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others;
while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God
in you. Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!’ (vv. 13 ff.).
Elsewhere, the poor are mentioned in Gal. 2:10, where Paul recalls his meeting
with the “‘pillars’’ of the Jerusalem church, at which he was given the right hand of
fellowship to go to the Gentiles, whilst they would go to the circumcision, i.e. the
Jews, “‘only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager
to do.” The need of material relief at Jerusalem is evident from the story of the
appointment of the seven to serve in the daily distribution (Acts 6:1 ff.). The
situation was no doubt aggravated for the church by Jewish hostility (cf. Acts
4:1 ff.; 5:17 ff; 6:12 ff.; 7:54 ff.; 9:1 f.; 12:1 ff.). Acts 11:27 ff. reports how the
Christian prophet Agabus came from Jerusalem to Antioch and foretold the great
famine which took place under the emperor Claudius. Several famines are known
from other sources to have taken place about this time (Josephus, Ant. 3, 15, 3;
20, 2, 5; 20, 5, 2; Dio Cassius, 60, 11; Eusebius, Chron.Canon; Tacitus, Ann. 12, 43;
Orosius, 7, 6, 17; cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 19527, 239 f.). Acts
11:29 f. records the response of the church at Antioch: “‘And the disciples deter-
mined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived
in Judea; and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and
Saul” (cf. 12:25).
For a reconstruction of the events and an interpretation of their significance see
K. F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy, SBT 48, 1966. Nickle
holds that the prototype of Paul’s collection was the famine relief sent from Antioch.
Paul’s collection began as an act of charity, instigated at the Jerusalem meeting
described in Gal. But as the tensions increased between the Gentile mission led by
Paul with its more liberal attitude to the law and those at Jerusalem who clung to
Jewish practices, the collection took on a theological significance for Paul. It was a
means of reconciliation which bore fruit in the decisions of the Jerusalem council.
Although there were Jewish analogies in the temple — tax, the collection took on a
christological and soteriological significance. It was not only an act of charity
among fellow believers, motivated by the love of Christ; it was also an expression
of the solidarity of the Christian fellowship, showing that God had also called
the Gentiles to faith. It was, moreover, ‘‘an eschatological pilgrimage of the Gentile
Christians to Jerusalem by which the Jews were to be confronted with the un-
deniable reality of the divine gift of saving grace to the Gentiles and thereby be
themselves moved through jealousy to finally accept the gospel’ (op. cit., 142).
This latter point helps to explain the seriousness with which Paul regarded the
collection, and lends credence to the account of the trip in Acts 19:21-21:16 which
Paul insisted on completing despite the dangers (Acts 20:3, 23; 21:4, 10 ff.). Acts
rightly depicts the visit to Jerusalem “‘as the culmination and embodiment of Paul’s
entire apostleship” (op. cit., 143; cf. Acts 20:24). As an act of charity and means
827
POOR
of promoting unity between the two wings of the church, the collection produced
tangible results. But it failed to provoke the unbelieving Jews to turn to Christ.
Indeed, “‘the project not only supplied the coup de grdce to the faltering mission to
the Jews, but also resulted in the frustration of Paul’s plans for his future missionary
activity and required him to reorient his apostleship to that field of limited labour
available to him as a Roman prisoner”’ (op. cit., 155 f.). Although in the providence
of God the collection was not instrumental in bringing about a widespread con-
version of the Jews, it was nevertheless immensely fruitful in uniting the church
and in formulating principles of Christian giving.
(b) The theme of poverty is further developed in relation to the apostles who
among other things are described by Paul “‘as poor, yet making many rich” (2 Cor.
6:10). The paradoxical nature of the apostolic ministry follows the pattern set by
Christ (see below (c)) who is himself the ground and pattern for all Christian life
and giving.
(c) Paul uses the vb. only in 2 Cor. 8:9 where he applies it to Christ (see above
(a)). eptdcheusen, “‘he became poor’ is the ingressive aor. (Funk § 331). The
passage implies the pre-existence of Christ, though it does not define the manner of
Christ’s becoming poor in the way that Phil. 2:6 ff. speaks of the self-emptying of
Christ (+ Empty, art. kenos NT 3). For other descriptions of the incarnation cf.
Rom, 15:3 (where Paul grounds Christian conduct on the pattern of Christ who
“‘did not please himself”; cf. Ps. 69:9) and Gal. 4:4 f. (where Paul describes Christ
as “born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons’’). In each case the description of the
manner of Christ’s coming brings out the practical application that Paul wishes to
make to his readers. Here Christ’s becoming poor is the paradoxical ground of the
true riches of the believer. It is also the ground and example for Christian giving.
The richness of the Corinthians in terms of spiritual gifts is alluded to at the begin-
ning of 1 Cor. (1:5). But Paul can also speak ironically of their being rich (1 Cor.
4:8) in view of their spiritual conceit.
(d) The cosmic spirits (stoicheia) worshipped by the heathen, including formerly
the Galatian believers, are called ‘“‘weak and beggarly [asthené kai ptdcha]’’ (Gal.
4:9; cf. 4:3). The word translated “‘beggarly”’ here is in fact the same word which
was used at Gal. 2:10 for the poor. In other words, the stoicheia have nothing at all
to offer — but enslavement. But by listening to the Judaizers with their insistence
upon the necessity of —> circumcision for salvation and the observance of “‘months,
and seasons, and years’’ (4:10), the Galatian Christians are themselves in danger
of returning to their former enslavement, when through Christ and the Spirit
they could live as sons and heirs of God himself (4:1-7). On the stoicheia (cf. Col.
2:8, 20) — Law, art. stoicheia. C. Brown
—> Gift, - Humility, — Possessions, — Slave
(a). H. von Campenhausen, ‘“‘Early Christian Asceticism’’, in Tradition and Life in the Church
1968, 90-122; A. Cronbach, ‘“‘The Social Ideas of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha’’, Hebrew
Union College Annual 18, 1944, 119-56; J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 1970; A.
Gelin, The Poor of Yahweh, 1964; F. Hauck, penés etc., TDNT V1 37-40; F. Hauck and E. Bammel,
ptochos, etc., TDNT VI 885-915; M. Hengel, Property and Riches in the Early Church : Aspects of
a Social History of Early Christianity, 1974; and Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter
in Palestine in the Early Hellenistic Period, III, 1974; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus:
An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969,
828
PoOoR/POSSESSIONS
109-119; M. Katz, ‘‘Protection of the Weak in the Talmud’’, Columbia University Oriental Studies,
24, 1925, 72-82; L. E. Keck, ‘““The Poor among the Saints in the New Testament”, ZNW 56, 1965,
100-29; and ‘‘The Poor and the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran’’, ZNW 57, 1966, 54 ff. ;
K. F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy, SBT 48, 1966; M. Rostovtzeff, The Social
and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I-III, 1941; and The Social and Economic History of
the Roman Empire, ed. P. M. Fraser, 19577; M. Stenzel, ‘‘Poverty’’, EBT II 671 f.; R. de Vaux,
Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 1961; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament,
1974.
(b). W. W. Graf Baudissin, ‘‘Die alttestamentliche Religion und die Armen’’, Preussische Jahr-
biicher 149, 1912, 193-231; H. Birkeland, ‘Ani und ‘ Andw in den Psalmen, 1933; and Die Feinde des
Individuums in der israelitischen Psalmentliteratur, 1933; H. Bolkestein, Wohltatigkeit und Ar-
menpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, 1939; K. Bornhauser, Der Christ und seine Habe nach dem
Neuen Testament, 1936; H. Bruppacher, Die Beurteilung der Armut im Alten Testament, 1924; A.
Causse, Les “‘Pauvres” d’Israel, 1922; H.-J. Degenhardt, Lukas, Evangelist der Armen. Besitz und
Besitzverzicht in der lukanischen Schriften, 1965; M. Dibelius, ‘“‘Die soziale Motiv im Neuen
Testament’’, in Botschaft und Geschichte, I, 1953, 178-203; M. von Dmitrewski, Die christliche
freiwillige Armut vom Ursprung der Kirche bis 12. Jahrhundert, 1913; H. Donner, “Die soziale
Botschaft der Propheten im Lichte der Gesellschaftsordnung in Israel’’, Oriens Antiquus 2, 1963,
229-45; J. Dupont, Les Béatitudes, 1954, 184-244; M. Fendler, ‘‘Zur Sozialkritik des Amos’’,
EvTh 33, 1973, 32-53; P. Gauthier, Die Armen, Jesus und die Kirche, 1965; D. Georgi, Die
Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus fiir Jerusalem, ThF 38, 1965; H. Greeven, Die Hauptprobleme
der Sozialethik in der neuren Stoa und im Urchristentum, 1935; F. Hauck, Die Stellung des Urchri-
stentums zu Arbeit und Geld, 1921; P. Humbert, ‘‘Le Mot biblique ‘ ’ebyén’ ”’, Revue d’ Historie et
de Philosophie Religieuses 32, 1952, 1-6; R. Kittel, ‘‘Armengesetzgebung bei den Hebradern’’, RE
2, 60-63; R. Koch, ““Die Wertung des Reichtums im Lukasevangelium’’, Biblica, 38, 1957, 151-
69; H. Kreissig, Die sozialen Zusammenhange des juddischen Krieges, Schriften zur Geschichte und
Kultur der Antike 1, 1970; W. G. Kimmel, “‘Der Begriff des Eigentums im Neuen Testament’,
in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 271-77; A. Kuschke, ““Arm und Reich im Alten Testa-
ment, mit besonderer Berticksichtigung der nachexilischen Zeit’”’, ZA W 57, 1939, 31-57; E. Kutsch,
L. Hardick and F. Lau, ““Armut”’, RGG? I 622-28; J. Leipoldt, ‘“Jesus und die Armen’’, Neue kirch-
liche Zeitschrift 28, 1917, 784-810; and Der soziale Gedanke der urchristlichen Kirche, 1952; I.
Loeb, La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible, 1892; E. Lohmeyer Soziale Fragen im Urchristentum,
1921; N. Peters, Die soziale Firsorge im Alten Testament, 1936; P. A. Munch, ‘“‘Einige Bemer-
kungen zu “niyyim und den r*sa‘im in den Psalmen’’, Le Monde Orientale 30, 1936, 13-26; W.
Nowack, Die sozialen Probleme Israel und deren Bedeutung fiir die religidse Entwicklung dieses
Volkes, 1982; A. Rahlfs, ‘ani und ‘anadw in den Psalmen, 1892; SB I 818-26; II 643-47; IV 741,
503, 524 ff.; P. Régamez, La Pauvreté, 1941; M. Vansteenkiste, ‘“‘L’ani et l’anaw dans |’Ancien
Testament”, Divus Thomas 59, 1956, 3-19.
Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money
Possessions in some form or other are necessary to life. Gk. uses chréma, ktéma and
hyparxis as general words for property and possessions. In the NT at least peri-
poiésis, that which is one’s own, has to be distinguished from them, because it is
used in non-material contexts. Accumulated wealth may be denoted by ploutos,
riches, and thésauros, treasure. Material wealth can also be personified as a de-
monic power, Mammon (mamonas).
| Oncavpés | Oyaavpds (thésauros), place where something is kept,
(ikea se treasure box, chest, storehouse, storeroom, treasure;
Oncav pilw (thésaurizd), store up, gather, save up, reserve.
CL thésauros is found from Hesiod onwards. Its etymology is uncertain, and it is
probably a technical loan-word. It means: (a) a treasure chamber, a storage
829
POSSESSIONS
room, granary, strong-box; (b) treasure. Even at a very early period temples were
built with treasure chambers, where gifts and taxes in kind and money could be
stored. The practice appears to have spread from Egypt to Greece. Collecting
boxes were also known (cf. 2 Ki. 12:10). thésaurizo is used similarly in the sense of
storing up treasure, or putting it in safe keeping.
Mandaean gnostic literature made use of the concepts of the treasure-house
and the treasure of life and light from which the soul takes its rise, and to which it
may return after it has experienced salvation (cf. W. Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection
of Gnostic Texts, II, 1974, 190, 201 f., 210, 216, 223, 225, 233, 235, 239, 263, 287).
oT |. The corresponding OT term is ’6sar. It occurs lit. in Amos 8:5. The “treasury
of [the house of] Yahweh” is mentioned in Jos. 6:19, 24 in connection with the
holy war and the ban (cf. | Ki. 7:5; 14:26); in 1 Ki. 14:26 and 15:18 “‘the trea-
sures of the king’s house’”’ are also mentioned. Later, besides the common usage
(Prov. 10:2), we find the concept of heavenly treasuries (Jer. 50:25 [27:25], RSV
‘armoury’; 15:16; Job 38:22, RSV “‘storehouses’’) in which are stored up God’s
weapons of wrath, and also wind, snow and hail (cf. Eth.Enoch 17:3; Philo, Rer.
Div.Her. 76; Fug. 79; Leg.All. 3, 105). The — fear of Yahweh is Zion’s treasure
(Isa. 33:6). The thought, which sounds like a maxim from wisdom teaching, may
be compared with Ps. 74:12; Prov. 1:4; 15:6; Eccl. 1:16; 2:21; Isa. 47:10. The
verse “‘gives an assurance that God will not only annihilate the destroyer in the
end but will also henceforth grant his people a blessed future sustained by their
fear of God. The dramatic expectation of spoil is surpassed by that of a life in
righteousness and the fear of Yahweh in the new Jerusalem. The intrinsic connec-
tion between the two can be seen from a study of 11:1 ff.’ (O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39,
1974, 344). In Isa. 45:3 “the treasures of darkness” (i.e. treasures that are hidden
away) which God will give Cyrus will give him a true knowledge of Yahweh, the
God of Israel. The mention of treasure may be an allusion to the fabulous wealth
of Sardis which was captured by Cyrus in 546 B.c. (cf. R. N. Whybray, Isaiah
40-66, New Century Bible, 1975, 105 f.). This would then be a contrast between
earthly treasure for which men labour and fight and the treasure which Yahweh
alone gives. Men should search for the fear of the Lord and the — knowledge of
God as they do for buried treasures (Prov. 2:4 f.).
2. In later Judaism good works, e.g. alms giving, are a treasure which is stored
up as a reward in the world to come, while the interest is enjoyed in this world as
well (cf. Tob. 4:8 ff.; 2 Esd. 6:5 ff.; 7:77; Tosefta Peah 4:18; SB I 430). ‘‘AII that
Israel lays up in the form of fulfilments of the Law and good works, it lays up for
its Father in heaven” (Deut. R. 1 on Deut. 1:1; cf. F. Hauck, TDNT III 137; SB
I 431). The rabbis sometimes spoke of the treasure from which the scribe draws
and of the treasure house of eternal life, i.e. the place where the souls of the dead
are stored up, or the “‘bundle”’ in which they are “‘bound”’ (cf. 1 Sam. 15:29; F.
Hauck, ibid.; SB II 268; III 803).
NT The NT continues both the ancient meaning of thésauros and its usage in OT
and Rabbinic literature. It occurs twice in Paul (2 Cor. 4:7; Col. 2:3), once in
Heb. 11:26 and 16 times in the Synoptic Gospels, mainly in the words of Jesus.
The vb. thésauriz6é occurs 8 times (twice in Matt.; once in Lk.; 3 times in Paul;
and once each in Jas. and 2 Pet.). The concept frequently involves the paradoxical
830
POSSESSIONS
transformation of earthly values. What is treasured by men is of no enduring
worth in God’s sight, and real treasure involves earthly poverty.
1. (a) In Matt. 2:11 the thésaurous which the Magi opened in bringing their gifts
to the infant Jesus were their treasure chests (— Magic, art. mageia NT 2 (b); >
Gold; — Incense). In Matt. 12:35 par. Lk. 6:45 the — heart is compared with a
‘“‘sood treasure’? out of which a good man brings forth good. Here the picture is
either that of a storehouse or a treasure chest. In either case the point is that >
good can only come out of a good heart. As such, the words constitute a warning
against the hypocrisy of appearing to speak good, whereas in fact one intends evil
(— Lie). In Matt. the illustration follows the warning against blasphemy against the
—» Spirit and precedes the sayings about the sign of — Jonah and the men of >
Nineveh. In Lk. it is included in the sayings of the Sermon on the Plain.
(b) In Matt.’s account of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says to his disciples:
“Do not lay up [thésaurizete] for yourselves treasures [thésaurous] on earth, where
moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up [thésauri-
zete| for yourselves treasures [thésaurous] in heaven, where neither moth nor rust
consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure
[thésauros] is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:19 ff.). Lk. gives the saying in
a different context together with other sayings which in Matt. occur in the Sermon
on the Mount which are prefaced by the general formula: “‘And he said to the
disciples...” (Lk. 12:22). In Lk.’s version it reads: ‘Sell your possessions, and
give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with treasure in
the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Lk. 12:33 f.). “The
parallelism and tautology of Mt. are Hebraic, and probably nearer to the original.
He gives a genuine picture of Oriental wealth, garments etc. stored in barbaric
abundance, too numerous for use” (A. H. McNeile, The Gospel according to St.
Matthew, 1915, 83). On the alliteration and paronomasia of the Heb. poetic form
here see M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 1967°, 160. The
word translated here as “‘rust”’ is brdsis which generally means eating (cf. 1 Cor.
8:4: 2 Cor. 9:10). It is used in cl. Gk. for the decay of teeth (Galen 6, 422; cf.
Arndt, 147). In Matt. it is widely assumed to denote some form of corrosion or
rust, although the latter is more commonly denoted by ios (— Gall). It might also
refer to an insect parallel to the moth (sés); in Mal. 3:11 LXX it appears to refer
to the grasshopper or locust. McNeile thinks that the term refers to the devouring
by mice and other vermin of wealth stored in barns (op. cit., 84). The vb. aphanizo
which the RSV here translates by “‘consume”’ means lit. to render invisible or
unrecognizable. It occurs in Matt. 6:16 in the sense of “‘disfigure’’. But it can also
mean to destroy and in the passive to perish. The vb. diorysso which describes the
action of the thieves means to dig through, i.e. the sun-dried brick walls of the
house. It is used again in the passive in Matt. 24:43 and Lk. 12:39.
‘“‘The idea of ‘treasures in heaven’ (i.e. what wins divine approval and reward in
the coming Kingdom) is thoroughly Jewish; cf. M. Peah i. 1; Test.Levi 13.5;
Ps.Sol. 9.9” (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 142). The
nature of this treasure is not more precisely defined, although the following sayings
in Matt. warn against double-mindedness, trying to serve God and mammon
(—> mamonas), anxiety about food and clothing, culminating in the injunction:
831
POSSESSIONS
‘But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be
yours as well” (Matt. 6:33). To this is added the warning against anxiety: ““There-
fore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself.
Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day’? (Matt. 6:34; > Care). But
perhaps the saying, at least in the case of Lk., may be related to the parable of the
unjust steward and the succeeding sayings (Lk. 16:1-14) which also contain
references to mammon. (On the interpretation of the parable — House, art.
oikonomia, NT 1 (a).) The point of the parable and the sayings is to teach wise
stewardship of worldly goods so that, when their use is past, there will nevertheless
be an enduring benefit both for those who have benefited from such wise steward-
ship and for those who have exercised it. In particular, Lk. 16:9 states: “‘And I
tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that
when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.’’ In this verse
“they” may refer to those who have benefited from the wise and generous use of
““mammon’’, or it may be a Hebraism referring to God without actually mentioning
his name, or it may refer to God and his angels (cf. E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke,
New Century Bible, 1966, 201 f.). In any case, what is worth possessing is not ma-
terial things which perish but personal acceptance by God and by those who have
benefited from one’s use of material things (cf. Lk. 16:9a). Lk. 12:33 with its
injunction to sell one’s possessions and give alms appears to be making a similar
point. Matt. does not give the parable of the unjust steward or relate the saying
about treasure to the injunction to sell one’s possessions, but the saying is followed
shortly by the warning that one cannot serve God and mammon (Matt. 6:24),
Clearly the paradox involves a contrast between worldly possessions and spiritual
good. But in view of its proximity to the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13) and the
saying about the kingdom in Matt. 6:33, Matt. understood the treasure primarily
in terms of the — kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 13:44). On man’s side this is
understood in terms of doing the will of God; on God’s side it is God’s reign and
gracious provision for his children. But here again the treasure is not some form of
accumulated spiritual capital, it is the realization of a gracious personal relation-
ship with the Father and with one’s fellow men in the kingdom of God. For the
kingdom of God is not concerned simply with one’s private personal relationship
with God but with man’s relationship to God as it is embodied in his relationships
with his fellow men.
Justin Martyr has a saying comparable with Matt. 6:21 and Lk. 12:34: ‘““‘Where
his treasure is, there also is the mind of man” (Apol. J, 15). ‘““Each individual sets
his heart on what he counts important, and this allegiance determines the direction
and content of his life” (D. Hill, op. cit., 142). In the context of the Sermon on the
Mount and in particular of Matt. 6, the treasure in Matt. is to be understood in
terms of the kingdom of heaven, and how it affects the disciples’ attitude to material
possessions. Lk. 12 specifically contrasts the treasure with material possessions,
but it too sets the saying in the context of the kingdom which is God’s gift: ‘‘Fear
not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom”’
(Lk. 12:32).
(c) The teaching about treasure is further exemplified by the story of the rich
young ruler who was told by Jesus: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you
possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come,
832
POSSESSIONS
follow me” (Matt. 19:21 par. Mk. 10:21, Lk. 18:22). But this saying makes ex-
plicit a point which is implicit in the background of the earlier sayings. Not only
is the treasure, as in Judaism, seen in the light of the coming end-time; it is also
connected with following Jesus.
(d) In Matt. 13:44 the kingdom is compared with a treasure: “The kingdom of
heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then
in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.” J. Jeremias draws
attention to the joy that the kingdom brings and the demands that it makes. ‘‘The
effect of the joyful news is overpowering; it fills the heart with gladness; it makes
life’s whole aim the consummation of the divine community and produces the most
whole-hearted self-sacrifice’? (The Parables of Jesus, 19637, 201). For a detailed
examination of the parable against the background of rabbinic concepts of owner-
ship in such cases see J. D. M. Derrett, ““The Treasure in the Field’’, in Law in the
New Testament, 1970, 1-16. According to rabbinic teaching, if a workman lifted a
treasure in the course of his work, the find would belong to the master. But in the
parable the man does not actually lift it until he is the actual owner of the field.
It may be pointed out that the man gets the treasure free, though the field costs all
that he has. Moreover, he is prepared to go to any lengths permitted by the law to
obtain it. Derrett compares the parable with that of the pearl of great price which
immediately follows it (Matt. 13:45 f.). The man who found the treasure came
upon it without seeking it, although his purchase of the field meant a complete
reorientation of his life. The merchant, however, was one who devoted his life to
the search for pearls. Derrett sees a parallel in the rabbinical saying: ‘One wins
eternal life after a struggle of years, another finds it in one hour’ (Abodah Zarah
17a; cf. also Philo, Deus Imm. 20, 91; op. cit., 15). But Derrett also sees in the
parable a further twist. He sees the whole of Matt. 13:36-51 as ‘“‘an elaborate
little sermon based on Mal ui. 16-1v. 3” (ibid.; — peripoieomai). “‘Just as a man
treasures a chance find or something he is looking for for years, so God will
treasure his servants. If an ordinary man will take such pains over a find of bullion
or a pearl, how much the more will God gloat, as it were, over those who have
served him faithfully’’ (ibid.). There may well be the further idea that this treasure
had to be purchased at a great price — in fact, all he had and held dear.
(e) The parable of the rich fool (Lk. 12:16—21) presents the converse of Jesus’
positive teaching about treasure. It paints a picture of a man who did, in fact,
store up earthly possessions. ‘‘But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul 1s
required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is he
who lays up treasure for himself [ho thésaurizon heautd], and is not rich towards
God” (Lk. 12:20 f.). Lk. presents the parable in conjunction with Jesus’ refusal
to intervene in a family feud over possessions. In response to a request to insist
upon a brother dividing his inheritance Jesus replied: ‘‘ ‘Man, who made me a judge
or divider over you?’ And he said to them, “Take heed, and beware of all covetous-
ness; for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions [Aypar-
chonton] ” (Lk. 12:14 f.). Lk. then takes the opportunity to present Jesus’ teaching
on anxiety about food and clothing, and on treasure, as discussed above.
(f) The theme of treasure is a recurrent one in Matt. and Lk. Although numeri-
cally speaking the incidence of occurrences is not great (the noun 9 times in Matt.
and 4 times in Lk.; the vb. twice in Matt. and once in Lk.; cf. the noun once in
833
POSSESSIONS
Mk.), the concept occurs at significant points in connection with man’s funda-
mental relationship with God and his fellow men. thésauros in the sense of treasure
chest occurs in Matt. 13:52 at the conclusion of Matt.’s account of the parables of
the sower, the wheat and the tares, the mustard seed, the leaven, the treasure, the
pearl of great price and the fish net. In response to the disciples’ affirmation that
they have understood, Jesus said: ““Therefore every scribe who has been trained for
the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is
new and what is old.” The contents of the treasure chest is not simply the teaching
as such but the teaching as the occasion for appropriating the kingdom. On this
verse — Old, art. palai NT 2 (a); — Scribe, art. grammateus.
2. (a) Paul uses the vb. thésaurizo in the sense of store up in his instructions to
the Corinthians about the collection for the poor of Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:2; >
Poor, art. ptdchos NT 4 (a)). Similarly he uses it again in 2 Cor. 12:14 where he
declares that “‘children ought not to lay up [thésaurizein] for their parents, but
parents for their children.” In this context Paul is speaking of his forthcoming visit
and his determination not to be a burden to them. For he regards himself as their
father (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15), and hence he is under obligation to support them and not
vice versa.
(b) In Rom. 2:5 the vb. is used figuratively in addressing the Jew who “‘by your
hard and impenitent heart are storing up [thésaurizeis] wrath for yourself on the
day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.’’ There is an ironic
contrast here, on the one hand, with “the riches [ploutou]’ of God’s kindness,
forbearance and patience (v. 4) on which the Jew is in fact presuming, and, on the
other hand, with the Jewish conception of treasure stored up in the world to come
as a reward for good works (see above, OT 2). (—> Anger, art. orgé, NT 2.)
(c) By contrast the noun is twice used in the Pauline letters, each time with a
christological connotation. In 2 Cor. 4:7 Paul compares the treasure of God’s
gift in Christ to the believer with the bodily existence of those who receive it: “‘“But
we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power
belongs to God and not to us.”’ The treasure has been previously defined in the
preceding verse in a manner recalling the creation of light: “‘For it is the God who
said, “Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light
of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ’? (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. Gen.
1:3; Ps. 112:4; on this passage see C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corin-
thians, BNTC, 1973, 134 ff.). The treasure is thus revealed, but at the same time
there is a sense in which it is hidden. It is hidden by the vessel that contains it and
the outward circumstances of the believer’s life which presents a paradox with the
inner reality.
Col. 2:3 also speaks of treasure christologically: “in whom are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”’ As in 2 Cor. 4, the treasure is linked with
revelation and knowledge (cf. Col. 2:2). But the hiddenness refers to Christ who,
though it might not appear so to earthly sight, is nevertheless “‘the image o* the
invisible God” in whom all things were created, and in whom “‘all the fullness
of God was pleased to dwell’ (Col. 1:15, 19). Moreover, he is now with God with
whom the life of believers is also hidden (Col. 3:3). The image in Col]. 2:3 “‘is that
of a hidden treasure for which there are hints which entice the searcher to wager
everything on finding it. Thus this sentence implies challenge to search out the
834
POSSESSIONS
only place where the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are to be found. Jewish
apocalyptic often speaks of a hidden treasure in order to create interest in its
invitations to right knowledge, since under the guise of the mystery lies the gift
which God through revelation has allotted to the elect” (E. Lohse, Colossians and
Philemon, Hermeneia, 1971, 82: cf. Eth.Enoch 46:3 “‘This is the Son of Man who
has righteousness, with whom dwells righteousness, and who reveals all the
treasures of that which is hidden’’). Despite certain similarities, Lohse rejects the
suggestion that the verse contains allusions to Isa. 45:3; Sir. 1:25; Prov. 2:3 f.
(— Hide, art. kArypto; — Secret, art. mystérion.)
3. The precise meaning of Heb. 11:26 is the subject of considerable discussion
(cf. C. Spica, L’Epitre aux Hébreux, II, 19533, 358 f.; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the
Hebrews, NLC, 1964, 320 f.). It is commonly given a christological interpretation,
as if Moses had a vision or experience of Christ comparable with that of Paul in
Phil. 3:7 which caused him to prefer Christ to the treasures of Egypt. Thus RSV
translates the verse: ““He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth
than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked to the reward [meizona plouton hégésa-
menos ton Aigyptou thésauron ton oneidismon tou Christou, apeblepen gar eis tén
misthapodosian].’’ However, F. F. Bruce questions whether there is a veiled refer-
ence here to the belief that Jesus, long before the incarnation, accompanied the
Israelites through the wilderness. Certainly the OT narratives of — Moses and the
exodus from — Egypt give no hint of such a belief. The NEB offers an alternative
rendering which does perhaps more justice to the Gk. and the OT background:
‘““He considered the stigma that rests on God’s Anointed.” For here tou Christou
suggests a title which, in fact, means “the Anointed’”’ (— Jesus Christ, art. Christos).
Moreover, the verse appears to take up the thought and phraseology of Ps. 89:50 f.
(88:51 f.): ““Remember, O Lord, the reproach [oneidismou] of thy servants...
wherewith thy enemies have reproached [éneidisan], O Lord, wherewith they have
reproached thy Anointed by way of recompense [hou Oneidisan to antallagma tou
christou sou].” Cf. also Ps. 69:9 (68:10) which Paul applies to Christ in Rom. 15:3:
“The reproaches of those who reproached thee fell on me [hoi oneidismoi ton
oneidizonton se epepesan ep’ eme|’’; and Ps. 105:15: ““Touch not my anointed ones.”
In the first instance it is the people of God that is God’s anointed. What Moses
preferred to the treasures of Egypt was the lot of the people of God, as God’s anoin-
ted, for he believed God’s promises to them (cf. Heb. 11:27). Thus here — Israel
is God’s son, as God through Moses reminded Pharaoh when he demanded their
release: “Israel is my son, my firstborn” (Exod. 4:22). And it was with the lot of
Israel that Moses identified himself. This interpretation has the further advantage
of being compatible with all the other instances of faith in Heb. 11 drawn from
OT history. For none of these are given a specific christological interpretation.
They are all related to the OT and Jewish background. The reproach, abuse, or
stigma which was the lot of the people of Israel thus anticipates the reproach
which is the lot of those who follow Christ. The same act of faith is required
to prefer suffering in the light of the promises of God to material gain. As such
the one is a type of the other. If we are to read tou Christou as a reference to Jesus
as “‘the Christ”, it is as a kind of shorthand in which the type and the antitype
coalesce.
Spicq suggests that the thésauron in Heb. 11:26 may refer to granaries (cf.
835
POSSESSIONS
Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, I, 1915, 231, 8, dated
c. A.D. 40) or to stores of wine (cf. G. Vitelli and D. Comparetti, Papiri Fiorentini,
1906-15, I, 194, 6; P.Oxy. I, 101, 20; P.Teb. I, 6, 27; P. Mitteis and U. Wilcken,
Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I, 1912, 1, 376; A. Calderini,
THESAUROI. Ricerche di Topografia e di Storia della Publica Amministrazione nell’
Egitto Greco-Romano, 1924, IV, 3). Spicq further suggests that the use of the word
in Heb. in this sense may provide a novel attestation of the Alexandrian back-
ground of the author of Heb., underlining the contrast between the abundance of
agricultural products in Egypt and the chronic famines in Palestine. It would
certainly lend point to the complaints of the Israelites about the lack of food and
drink during the exodus wanderings (cf. Exod. 15:24; 16:2 f.; Num. 11:4 ff.).
4. Jas. 5:3 appears to take up the thought about treasure expressed in the
teaching of Jesus: ““Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence
against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure [ethésaurisate]
for the last days”’ (see above, 1 ; Gall; — Gold). It spells out the judgment which
awaits those who are preoccupied with earthly treasure. There is an irony here.
For while the people concerned thought that they were storing up treasure, they
were, in fact, storing up judgment (cf. Rom. 2:5).
5. 2 Pet. 3:5 takes further the idea of storing up judgment. Whereas Jesus and
Paul speak of individuals storing up treasure or wrath in the age to come, 2 Pet.
applies the idea to the whole world order: “But by the same word the heavens and
earth that now exist have been stored up for fire [tethésaurismenoi eisin pyri], being
kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” J. N. D. Kelly
observes that, ““The idea that the world will be finally annihilated by fire appears
only in 2 Peter in the NT, and is indeed in its fully developed form not Biblical at
all: in the OT passages sometimes cited to prove the contrary (e.g. Is. xxx. 30; Ixvi.
15 f.; Nah. 1. 6; Zeph. 1. 18; ii. 8) fire is rather the instrument of God’s wrath to
destroy His enemies (e.g. Ps. xcvii. 4)” (The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, BNTC
1969, 360). There are, however, the biblical ideas of — judgment, the new — crea-
tion, regeneration (— Birth, art. palingenesia), and the new — heaven and — earth.
Kelly sees the idea of the annihilation of the world by fire taking shape in Jewish
apocalyptic (e.g. Sib. 2:187-213; 3:83-92; 4:171-182; 5:155-161; Eth.Enoch
1:6-9; 52:6; 2 Esd. 13:10 f.). It was held at Qumran (1QH 3:29-36). It is found
occasionally in early Christian literature (e.g. Eth.Ape.Pet. 5; Hermas, Vis. 4, 3, 3;
Origen, Contra Cels. 4, 11-13). Kelly further observes that ““‘There are obvious
similarities, but equally marked differences (cf. esp. the alternate destruction and
renewals of the world presupposed by the latter), between this teaching and the
Stoic doctrine of ekpurdésis (e.g. Justin, J Apol. xx; Seneca, Quaest.nat. iii. 29;
Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil. vii. 134; Plutarch, Mor. 1067a), i.e. that the universe is
periodically consumed by fire, and both were deeply influenced far back by Iranian
conceptions and imagery” (op. cit., 361; cf. F. Lang, pyr etc., TDNT VI 928-52; >
Fire). J. Eichler, C. Brown
| LALMVAaC | Lap@vac (mamonas), Mammon, wealth, property.
The Gk. word mamonas is first found in the NT. It renders the emphatic state
mamona@ of the Aram. mamén. A number of etymologies have been suggested
836
POSSESSIONS
(cf. E. Nestle, ““Mammon”’, Encyclopaedia Biblica, 2914 f.; F. Hauck, mamonas,
TDNT IV 388; SB I 434; A. M. Honeyman, “The Etymology of Mammon”’,
Archivum Linguisticum 4, 1952, 60-65). Hauck prefers to link it with the vb.
"aman as “‘that in which one trusts’, but Nestle suggests that it might also mean
what is entrusted to man, or that which supports and nourishes men. The Syriac
lexicographers favoured the latter view. In Lk. 16:11 there is an apparent play on
words with this root: “‘If then you have not been faithful [pistoi] in the unrighteous
mammon, who will entrust [ pisteusei| to you the true [aléthinon] riches ?”’ The three
Gk. words pistoi, pisteusei and aléthinon all appear to translate words from the
same root ’mn from which mammon appears to be formed. This root is also found
in — Amen.
The word is found in the Mishnah (Aboth 2:12) and the Damascus document
(cf. Arndt, 491). In the Babylonian Talmud it is found with the sense of profit or
money (Berakoth 61b; cf. M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts,
19673, 139). Black also draws attention to its use in the Palestinian Pentateuch
Targum to Gen. 34:23 (C) to render Heb. migneh, cattle, which constituted the
wealth of the Hebrew farmer, and to its frequent occurrence in the Palestinian
Talmud (e.g. Nazir 5:4:54b:12; Sanhedrin 8:8:26c: 20 f.). In rabbinic writing it
means not merely money in the strict sense but a man’s possessions, everything
that has value equivalent to money, and even all that he possesses apart from his
body and life. In itself the word may be neutral, but it acquired in negative contexts
the connotation of possessions dishonestly gained and wealth dishonestly used,
as in bribery.
The word occurs three times in the sayings appended to the parable of the unjust
steward (Lk. 16:1-8). At the end of the parable “the master [ho kyrios]’ (the
master in the parable, or perhaps Jesus or God) commended the dishonest steward
for his prudence, for the sons of this world are wiser towards their generation than
the sons of light (Lk. 16:8). The parable is addressed to the disciples teaching them
prudence in handling this world’s goods (on the exegesis of the parable — House,
art. oikonomia, NT | (a); cf. J. D. M. Derrett, ‘““The Parable of the Unjust Steward’’,
in Law in the New Testament, 1970, 48-77). In particular, they are to use the goods
of this world in a way which is righteous and which will benefit others. For the
steward’s action in remitting various debts owed to his master achieved a double
object. On the one hand, the master had been charging exorbitant interest which
was forbidden by the law and the steward was actually putting his master right in
the eyes of the law. On the other hand, he was doing himself a favour by ingratiating
himself with his master’s debtors. Lk. 16:9 adds: “‘And I tell you, make friends for
yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive
you into the eternal habitations.” The injunction is not to befriend mammon but
to use mammon for the benefit of others. In this verse “‘they’’ may refer to those
who have benefited from such use of mammon, or it may be a Hebraism referring
to God without actually mentioning his name, or it may refer to God and his
angels. The point is that mammon itself does not endure, but it may be used to
achieve something which is enduring. Mammon itself is material, but its use has
personal dimensions. The pun in Lk. 16:11 has already been noted. The verse
contrasts the relatively minor value of material things with the true riches which
exist on a higher and personal plain: “If then you have not been faithful in the
837
POSSESSIONS
unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches?’ Stewardship of
material possessions is thus a probationary test for further stewardship (cf. the
parables of the pounds [Lk. 19:11—27] and the talents [Matt. 25:14~-30]). The
following verse implies that mammon is not something which one actually possesses
but is, in fact, “‘another’s’’. The disciple has to prove his faithful and wise steward-
ship of this before he may be entrusted with what is his own. The disciple as a
steward is not yet his own master (cf. Lk. 17:7—10). But neither should he be the
servant of mammon. For mammon, now personified in v. 13, inevitably becomes
the master if a man tries to make himself its master by acquiring it for its own sake.
Men are confronted by the stark choice: “‘No servant can serve two masters; for
either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and
despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”’
The only other passage in which mammon is mentioned is Matt. 6:24 which is
verbally identical with Lk. 16:13 but which lacks the accompanying sayings. The
saying about the two masters is found in Gos.Thom. 47 but without reference
to mammon. Mammon is mentioned in 2 Clem. 6:1. C. Brown
| 1 pImoleoual (peripoieomai), save or preserve for oneself,
| TLE PITMOLEOLAL :
acquire, get something for oneself, get possession of;
TMEMINOINGIC (peripoiésis), gaining, obtaining, acquisition, a possession, property;
mé plovaloc (periousios), chosen, especial; ta idia (ta idia), one’s own, possessions,
property.
CL peripoieomai, the mid. of the less frequent peripoied, used from Hdt. onwards,
means to cause to remain over and above, to save up, lay by, procure, keep,
save for oneself. The cognate noun peripoiésis means keeping safe, preservation,
gaining possession of, acquisition, procuring. periousios means having more than
enough, rich, wealthy.
oT The Heb. s°gullah, property, treasure, is used of David’s treasure (1 Chr. 29:3),
the treasure of kings (Eccl. 2:8), and Israel as God’s special possession (Exod.
19:5; Deut. 7:6; Ps. 134:4; Mal. 3:17). It is rendered by peripoiésis only at Mal.
3:17. periousios is used of God’s chosen people at Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2;
26:18; and Exod. 23:22 (a free translation). periousiasmos, private possession, is
used in the LXX translation in Ps. 135(134):4. The idea behind periousios is not
just that of Israel as God’s property but that of his “rich possession” (H. Preisker,
TDNT IV 57). On the idea of Israel as God’s s¢gullah see J. D. M. Derrett, Law in
the New Testament, 1970, 15 f. Derrett sees Mal. 3:16—4:3 reflected in Matt. 13:36—
51 (— thésauros, NT | (d)).
NT 1. In the NT peripoieomai (3 times) and peripoiésis (5 times) are preferred to
periousios which occurs only once. The idea of salvation stands in the back-
ground. The vb. occurs at Lk. 17:33 (“Whoever seeks to gain [ peripoiésasthai| his
life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it’?; —> Soul, art. psyché);
Acts 20:28 (“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit
has made you guardians, to feed the church of the Lord which he obtained [ perie-
poiésato| with his own blood’’); 1 Tim. 3:13 (“for those who serve well as deacons
838
POSSESSIONS
gain [peripoiountai] good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the
faith which is in Christ Jesus’). The noun occurs in the following passages. In
Eph. 1:14 the — Spirit is said to be “the guarantee of our inheritance until we
acquire possession of it [eis apolytrosin tés peripoiéseds].” In 1 Thess. 5:9 Paul
assures his readers: ‘‘For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation
[eis peripoiésin sotérias| through our Lord Jesus Christ.” In 2 Thess. 2:14 this is
described in terms of — glory: “To this he called you through our gospel, so that
you may obtain the glory [eis peripoiésin doxés] of our Lord Jesus Christ.”” Heb.
10:39 may reflect something of the thought of Lk. 17:33: “But we are not of those
who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their
souls [eis peripoiésin psychés].”’ Finally, 1 Pet. 2:9 takes up the thought of Exod.
19:5, cf. Deut. 14:2: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,
a people for his possession [ethnos hagion laos, eis peripoiésin], that you may declare
the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous
light.”’
2. periousios is found only in Tit. 2:14 in a verse which summarizes the work of
Christ ‘‘who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for
himself a people of his own [/aon periousion] who are zealous for good deeds.”’
The idea of God’s treasured people again takes up the Heb. idea of the ‘am s°gullah
(cf. Exod. 19:5; Deut. 14:2), but, as in 1 Pet. 2:9, it is not — Israel which is so
described but the — church. Whereas 1 Pet. focuses on the priestly réle of the
people in declaring God’s wonderful deeds, Tit. 2:14 draws attention to the kind
of deeds which the people of God should be zealous to perform. The verse comes,
in fact, at the climax of a survey of how the gospel should affect different people
in their different situations. .
3. The adj. idios means own and is widely used in a variety of contexts in various
senses (cf. Arndt, 370), e.g. according to his own capability (Matt. 25:15); each
one will receive his own wages according to his own labour (1 Cor. 3:8); one’s
own (private) interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20); his (own) sheep (Jn. 10:3 f.); each in his
own turn (1 Cor. 15:23); with our own hands (1 Cor. 4:12); and as an adv. idia
meaning by oneself, privately (1 Cor. 12:11; Matt. 14:13, 23). idios occurs some
113 times in the NT.
The neut. plur. ta idia meaning one’s home is attested in secular Gk. (e.g. Polyb.,
2, 57, 5; 3, 99, 4; P.Oxy. 4; further examples in Arndt 370) and the LXX (Est.
5:10; 6:12; 1 Esd. 6:31 [= 2 Esd. 6:11]; 3 Macc. 6:27, 37; 7:8; cf. also Josephus,
War, 1,666; 4, 528). In the NT it appears to mean home in Jn. 16:32 (on this verse
see E. Fascher, ‘‘Johannes 16, 32”, ZNW 39, 1940, 171-230); 19:27; Acts 5:18D;
14:18 y.l.; 21:6. The RSV takes it in this sense in its rendering of Jn. 1:11: “He
came to his own home, and his own people received him not [eis ta idia élthen, kai
hoi idioi auton ou parelabon|’ (cf. E. J. Goodspeed, Problems of New Testament
Translation, 1945, 87 f., 94 ff.; and F. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New
Testament, 1899, 84). It may be noted in the RSV that “home” and “‘people”’ are
interpretations which try to bring out the significance of the neut. plur. in the for-
mer case and the masc., plur. in the latter. R. Bultmann disputes this interpretation
(The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1971, 56). He claims that ta idia here must
mean property or possession (as e.g. P.Oxy. 489, 4; 490, 3; 491; 3; 492, 4). The
idioi are “his own’’, those who belong to him as their creator (cf. Od.Sol. 7:12; and
839
POSSESSIONS
Bultmann, op. cit., 44). He also sees here a background of gnostic dualism, accord-
ing to which idion means that which shares in a common nature (cf. 8:44; 10:3 f.;
13:1; 15:19; Corp.Herm. 1, 31; Iren., Haer. 1, 21, 5; Hippol., Haer. 5, 6, 7 etc.;
Act.Thom. 124, p. 233, 14; Od.Sol. 26:1). Bultmann rejects the suggestion that
ta idia might mean the Jewish people or Israel as God’s own people (cf. Exod.
19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps. 135:4). For the context of the Prologue of Jn.
is that of the Kosmos, the world, and anthropoi, men. It is thus a claim that he
possessed the whole universe from the beginning (cf. 1:1 ff.). Moreover, the normal
expression for the ‘am s*gullah is not idios but periousios. Bultmann sees parallels
with — wisdom which possesses the earth and sea (Ecclus. 24:6; cf. Prov. 1:24-31;
Bar. 3:12 f.; Eth.Enoch 42:1 f. where there is a parallel to ow parelabon). The
distinction between the neut. plur. and the masc. plur. belongs to the Gk.; in Aram.
both would have been diléh.
Lk. 18:28 also may be translated as homes or possessions: “‘And Peter said,
‘Lo, we have left our homes [ta idia] and followed you’ ”’ (RSV). The par. in Matt.
19:27 and Mk. 10:28 have panta, all. To this Jesus gives the reply: ““Truly, I say
to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children,
for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this
time, and in the age to come eternal life’? (Lk. 18:29 f.; cf. the further details
including persecutions in Mk. 10:30). The saying follows the story of the rich
young ruler who declined to sell all that he had to give to the poor and follow Jesus.
4. The use of three different concepts in the NT for property, quite apart from
concrete possessions, mirrors the riches of that which has been revealed through
the redemptive act of Jesus. He came into that which had been his own from the
beginning. He won his right to his people by his suffering and death, and this
people has been requisitioned by him, that 1t may — serve him in complete surren-
der and bear witness to him until his return. E. Beyreuther
= tAodtoc (ploutos), wealth, riches; zAotatoc (plousios),
mAODTOC rich, a rich man; zAovaiac (plousids), richly; nAovtéw
(plouted), be rich, become rich; zAovtiC@ (ploutizo), make rich.
cL 1. The word-group associated with ploutos is related to polys, much, and
means initially abundance of earthly possessions of every kind. Later its
meaning divided in two directions. In the one it meant riches in a technical and
material sense. In the other it was more general, and occurs with a qualifying word,
generally in the gen., e.g. riches of wisdom, honour, mercy, etc. All the words in
this group can bear this double meaning: plouted, be or become rich; ploutizo, make
rich; ploutos, possession of many goods, super-abundance of something, riches;
and plousios, as an adj, wealthy, rich and as a noun a rich man.
2. In Homer external wealth and virtue are not separated (cf. //. 1, 171; 16,
596; 24, 536, 546; Od. 24, 486). Rich is a comprehensive term for a fortunate life
blessed by the gods. Plato and Aristotle in particular judge riches by their effect
on society. If they do not serve the community (polis), they are to be rejected.
In Aristotle wealth is always material and is something that can be used wrongly
or rightly (Pol. 1, 9, p. 1256b—1258a, 8; 2, 9, p. 1269a, 34 f.). But Plato distinguishes
840
POSSESSIONS
material riches from true riches which consist of wisdom, virtue and culture (Rep.
7, 521a; 8, 547b; Phdr. 279c; cf. F. Hauck and W. Kasch, TDNT VI 322). The
Cynics completely despised material possessions because they brought commit-
ments and anxieties with them (cf. Stob., Ec/. 5, 782, 18; 5, 785, 15 ff.; 5, 766, 12;
5, 806, 17 ff.; see further TDNT VI 322). The Stoics considered that the chief
danger of riches lay in their creation of a feeling of false security, but they also
recognized their value because of the opportunities of developing the personality
which they offered (Seneca, De Vita Beata 22, 1; cf. TDNT VI 323). Basically
riches were not to be rejected, for (a) in Gk. culture riches did not have the socio-
logically divisive influence that they have had in other cultures, and (b) the idea
never appeared that they could be given up for the benefit of the poor.
OT 1. Riches in the older parts of OT are seen as having positive value. They
consisted mainly of flocks and herds, children and slaves (e.g. Gen. 13:2;
30:43) and were a gift of God. In the nomadic or semi-nomadic period riches
presented no problem, for there were no blatant differences between rich and poor.
At the conquest of Canaan Yahweh gave everyone his share. Since the land be-
longed to God, God extended his protection to the individual’s property (cf. the
laws in the Book of the Covenant, Exod. 20:22—23:19, which were later expanded
in those of Deut.).
Under the monarchy there was the development of royal cities and courts. With
the growth of commerce and trade a major social differentiation developed. There
was a small upper class of the rich and influential, who, as may be seen from the
prophets (Amos 2:6 ff.; 5:10 ff.; Isa. 5:8 ff.; Mic. 2:1 f.; Jer. 5:26 ff.; 34:8-11),
destroyed the people of God by injustice and violence and so brought deserved
judgment on the whole people.
In the wisdom literature, where our word-group is most frequent, we often
find unaffected praise of riches (e.g. Prov. 10:4, 15). But there are references to
their relative value (e.g. Ps. 49:16; Prov. 22:1), and their power to lead men astray
(e.g, Ps. 49:6; 52:7). At the same time we find in Job and the Pss. the problem of
vindicating the divine rule (especially Job 21; Pss. 37; 49; 73).
2. plousios normally translates the Heb. ‘asir, wealthy, rich (Ruth 3:10; 2 Sam.
12:1 f., 4; Job 27:19; Pss. 45[44]:12; 49[48]:2; Prov. 10:15; 14:20; 18:11; 22:2,
7, 16; cf. 23:4; 28:6, 11; Eccl. 10:6, 20; Isa. 53:9; Jer. 9:22[23]). It translates a
variety of other words in Gen. 13:2; Ps. 34[33]:10; Isa. 32:9, 13; 33:20; and is
without Heb. equivalent in 1 Sam. 2:10; Ezra 3:19, 21; Est. 1:20; Ps. 10:8[9:29];
Prov. 12:22; Wis. 8:5; Sir. 8:2; 10:22, 30; 13:2f., 18-23; 25:2; 26:4; 30:14;
31[34]:3, 8; 44:6; Jer. 24:1; Ad.Dan. 4; 1 Macc. 6:2. Similarly the corresponding
vbs. normally translate formations from the root ‘sr: plouteé (Exod. 30:15; Ps.
49[48]:16; Eccl. 5:11; Hos. 12:9[8]; Zech. 11:5; Jer. 5:27; Ezek. 27:33; Dan.
11:2; but not Gen. 30:43; Prov. 28:22; 31:28; Sir. 11:18, 21); and ploutizo (Gen.
14:23; 1 Sam. 2:7; 17:25; Job 15:29; Ps. 65[64]:9; Prov. 10:4, 22; 13:7; Ezek.
27:33; but there is no Heb. equivalent for Wis. 10:11; Sir. 11:21; 19:1; 2 Macc.
7:24). The noun ploutos mostly translates the Heb. ‘oser, riches (Gen. 31:16;
1 Sam. 17:25; 1 Ki. 3:11, 13; 10:23; 1 Chr. 29:12, 28; 2 Chr. 1:11 f.; 9:22; 17:5;
18:1; 32:37; Est. 1:4; 5:11; Pss. 49[48]:6; 112[111]:3; Prov. 3:16; 8:18; 11:16, 28;
13:8; 22:1, 4; 30:8[24:31]; Eccl. 4:8; 5:12, 18; 6:2; 9:11; Jer. 6:22[23]; 17:11;
841
POSSESSIONS
Dan. 11:2). Cognate Heb. words occur in Prov. 21:17 and Mic. 6:12. Some eight
other Heb. words occur in other passages, the most common of these being hayil,
capacity, power, wealth (Job 20:15, 18[?]; 21:7; 31:25; Pss. 49[48]:10; 52[51]:7;
62[61]:10; 73[75]:12; 76[75]:5; Prov. 13:22; 31:3[24:71]; 31:29; Isa. 60:5). The
Book of Isa. prefers hdm6én, which can mean commotion, crowd as well as
abundance, wealth (Isa. 16:14; 29:5, 7 f.; 32:14; 60:5; but with other words in
30:6; 61:6; and no Heb. equivalent in 24:8; 29:2; 32:18; 60:16). Other words
occur in Deut. 33:19 (Sepa‘, abundance); Est. 1:4; 5:11; Ps. 119(118):14; Prov.
13:7; 19:4(1); 24:4; 28:8; 29:3; Ezek. 26:12. There is no Heb. equivalent in
1 Sam. 2:10; Est. 10:10; Job 27:18; Ps. 37(36):3; Prov. 31:14; Wis. 5:8; 6:14;
7:8, 11, 13; 8:5, 18; Sir. 18:25; 21:4; 24:17; 28:10; 1 Macc. 4:23; 6:1.
3. At the end of the Inter-Testamental period these concepts are again to be
found. The members of the Qumran community adopted — ‘“‘the poor’ as a title
of honour. They practised community of possessions (cf. Josephus, War 2, 8, 3;
1QS 1:12; 5:2; 6:17, 19; 7:6). For discussion see M. Black, The Scrolls and
Christian Origins, 1961, 32-39. Black describes the community as “‘organized as a
kind of welfare state’, adding that “It was also a hierocratic community: all its
affairs, affecting the disposition of property no less than its purely ‘spiritual’
concerns, came within the jurisdiction of the priests” (op. cit., 37; cf. 1QS 5:2, 22).
For Enoch the end will in any case bring with it a complete reversal of all earthly
possession and fortune (Eth.Enoch 96:4; 100:6; 103:4 f.; cf. Syr.Bar. 29:6; 51:12-
52; 2 Esd. 7). When the Qumran texts speak of God’s — grace or — mercy they
may also add in parallelism ‘“‘multitude” (rob) and “riches” (hadmon) (cf. 1QM
4:32; 6:9; 7:27; 9:34; 10:24). Among the Pharisees only the righteousness derived
from keeping the law had real value, but riches enabled one to do good works,
carrying with them corresponding obligations (TDNT VI 325 f.; SB I 818, 822,
826 ff.; III 655 ff.; IV 490-500, 536-610). On the other hand, all circles where
eschatological hopes were earthly or nationalistic-had a high opinion of riches.
NT 1. The word-group does not appear in Jn., Acts, 1 and 2 Thess., Tit., Phlm.,
1-3 Jn., Jude. ploutos is found in the Gospels only in Matt. 13:22 par. Mk.
4:19, Lk. 8:14, where it means, as in | Tim. 6:17, Jas. 5:2, Rev. 18:17, wealth in
terms of earthly goods. The word is linked with God (Rom. 9:23), Christ (Eph.
3:8) and churches (2 Cor. 8:2). plousios, as adj. or noun, in sing. or plur., is used
to describe persons rich in this world’s goods (Matt. 19:23 f., par. Mk. 10:25,
Lk. 18:25; Matt. 27:57; Mk. 12:41; Lk. 6:24; 12:16; 14:12; 16:1, 19, 21 f.;
18:23; 19:2; 21:1; 1 Tim. 6:17; Jas. 1:10 f.; 2:6; Rev. 3:17; 13:16). Followed
by the dat., it expresses the riches of God (Eph. 2:4) or of the Christian (Jas. 2:5).
In 2 Cor. 8:9 and Rev. 2:9 it means those rich in spiritual possessions. The vb.
plouted is used absolutely in Lk. 1:53; 1 Tim. 6:9; Rev. 18:15 in the reference to
earthly possessions; and in | Cor. 4:8; 2 Cor. 8:9; Rev. 3:17f. of spiritual posses-
sions. Lk. 12:21 and 1 Tim. 6:17 refer to those works which have value with God.
Rom. 10:12 indicates that God’s riches are available for all. ploutiz6 means make
rich, enrich. God makes the church rich in all things (1 Cor. 1:5); the Christian
passes on those riches given by God so as to make others rich as well (2 Cor. 6:10;
9:11). The adv. plousiés occurs only at Col. 3:16 (‘let the word of Christ dwell in
you richly’); 1 Tim. 6:17 (of ““God who richly furnishes us with everything to
842
POSSESSIONS
enjoy;” contrasted with “the rich in this world’’); Tit. 3:6 (of the Holy Spirit poured
out richly); and 2 Pet. 1:11 (of the entrance to the kingdom richly provided). It
thus occurs only in the epistles and always in a spiritual sense of God’s rich
grace.
2. Theological significance. (a) Matt. stresses throughout the dangers inherent in
riches that may hinder the — kingdom of God, but it does not regard them as
basically Satanic (cf. Matt. 27:57). In other words, Matt. exhibits no ascetic
rejection of possessions and riches. If Jesus attacks mercilessly attachment to
earthly possessions (Matt. 13:22; 19:23 f.), his denunciation applies to riches in
exactly the same way as it does to every human self-contrived security and obsession
which make it impossible for men to see the kingdom of God. The seed is choked
by care and “‘the false glamour’ (NEB) of riches (he apaté tou ploutou, Matt.
13:22; cf. Mk. 4:19; Lk. 8:14). — Care is a characteristic of this age (Matt. 6:25-
32), and every kind of riches is deceitful when it so appeals to men that they are
hindered from hearing the message of the kingdom of heaven. In contrast poverty
in the Beatitudes means being open for the kingdom of God (— Poor, art. ptochos
NT | (b)). We find the same in Matt. 19:23 f., where “‘hard”’ is explained by Jesus’
answer in v. 26. The very reaction of the disciples in v. 25 shows that more is meant
by “‘rich” than economic standing; they realized that they were being included
among them. In other words riches are a characteristic of the man of this world.
Hence we must not weaken the force of “‘the eye of a needle’’ (19:24; — Animal,
Animals in the NT). In all this teaching Jesus entertains no possibility of man
attaining the kingdom of God, 1.e. life, as he stands. The new righteousness, which
carries life within it, comes alone from the power and might of God. Man must
receive it in repentance and faith. In other words, Jesus’ view of riches cannot be
separated from the crucial hour of decision which had come through him for the
people of Israel.
(b) In Mark the judgment on riches is perhaps expressed somewhat more mildly.
By speaking of “‘awakening desires”’ (cf. “delight”, Mk. 4:19) the danger is seen
in terms of a subjective threat to the individual psyche (E. Lohmeyer, Das Evan-
gelium nach Markus, KEK 1/2, 19671", ad loc.). Riches encourage confidence in them-
selves and so become a great obstacle on the way to the kingdom of God (Mk.
10:23 ff.).
(c) Lk. mentions riches only in Lk. 8:14; otherwise he speaks of the rich and
being rich. The rich landowner (12:16—20; — thésauros, NT | (e)) is a type of rich
men in general, if they have forgotten that God is the giver of what they have and
therefore put their confidence in it, or who give themselves up to unrestrained
enjoyment of it and so miss God’s purpose for their life (16:19-31). The — Phari-
sees scoffed at Jesus’ warning against mammon (Lk. 16:14; — mamonas), because
they were lovers of money (philargyroi; cf. 1 Tim. 6:10; 2 Tim. 3:2; — thésauros,
NT | (b)). The general verdict and the context of the passages in which Lk. deals
with the rich suggest the possibility that the term is used for the enemies of Jesus,
or that they are collectively identified by that name. Hence, there is a complete
rejection of the rich. The kingdom of God brings with it the reversal of all earthly
relationships (Lk. 1:53; 16:25; 6:24 ff.). Those who rejected Jesus and his message,
because they were enslaved by the present age and its deceitful riches, and allowed
their thoughts and imagination to be completely governed by what appeared to be
843
POSSESSIONS
the case at that moment, lost the future in their attempt to secure the present. Being
delivered up to the deceptive power of possessions means destruction. Salvation
comes to those who are liberated by the — gospel, and know that their riches
lie in the future which is even now dawning. The reversal of all earthly values,
which will become evident at the end of the age, will prove that only those riches
that have been stored up with God have lasting value and bring salvation to man
(16:9). Zacchaeus’s behaviour (19:8) and the admonition of 14:12 ff. are models
for this.
(d) The selfish rich are completely rejected in Jas. The judgment of the OT
prophets is echoed and the rich are depicted as the unrighteous (2:6; 5:1-6) who
can only expect calamity in the coming transformation of the world (5:1-6; 1:10 f.;
cf. Isa. 40:6 ff.). In contrast it is the — poor, the rich in faith, that have been chosen
(2:5).
(e) Paul is not interested in the material understanding of the term riches. He
gives it a deeper and new meaning by applying it to God, Christ and the church.
Fullness marks out God, the only truly rich One, e.g. in — glory (Rom. 9:23;
Eph. 3:16) and — grace (Eph. 2:7; 1:7). The church shares in these riches (1 Cor.
1:5; Eph. 1:7, 18). To be rich is an eschatological gift unconnected with material
possessions. Though the apostle is himself — poor, he makes many rich by his
preaching (2 Cor. 6:10). Seeing that Christ could make us rich only by emptying
himself (2 Cor. 8:9; cf. Phil. 2:5-11; ~ Empty, art. kenos, Nt 3; — Poor, art.
ptochos, NT 4), the Christian’s pathway through the world is one of self-emptying
and helping the brethren (2 Cor. 8:2; 9:10 ff.). Israel’s rejection of Christ means
riches for the Gentiles, for the message of salvation is now directed to them (Rom.
11:12). (On the soteriological significance of the collection for the Jerusalem
church — Poor, art. ptochos, NT 4 (a).) The eschatological nature of these riches is
missed, if they are used as the justification for self-praise (+ Boast) and for self-
confidence within the church (1 Cor. 4:8).
(f) In 1 Tim. earthly riches are not rejected, but the rich are warned against
putting their confidence in that which is transient, and are called on instead to
become rich in good works by a right use of their possessions (1 Tim. 6:17 ff.).
Heb. 11:26 has a Pauline flavour: transient abuse became riches for Moses as he
looked to the future reward, and his sufferings for the people became a typical
anticipation of the sufferings of Christ (— thésauros, NT 3). Rev. contains a double
message: (1) The rich cannot stand before the wrath of the ~ Lamb (6:15 f.),
and those who have been enriched by — Babylon fall together with it (18:3, 15,
17, 19). (2) The church in Smyrna, though, or just because, it is persecuted for the
sake of the faith, is truly rich (2:9). Laodicea, on the other hand, is poor, because
it thinks itself spiritually rich (~ Cold, Hot, Lukewarm). It is called on to become
rich by turning to the Lord (3:17 f.). Riches are mentioned in 5:12 in the praise
offered to the Lamb.
3. In the story of the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16—-22 par. Mk. 10:17—22, Lk
18:18-—23) plousios and — chréma, or ktéma, are used as synonymous concepts.
chréma, ktéma and hyparxis mean only money, or goods and chattels which can
be turned into money.
There is a close connection between — mamonas tés adikias, unrighteous mam-
mon (Lk. 16:9, 11), and hé apaté tou ploutou, the deceitfulness of (RSV ‘“‘delight
844
POSSESSIONS
in’’) riches (Matt. 13:22; Mk. 4:19), but mamonas suggests wealth and property
which constitute a man’s capital, and we must remain free of its enticements.
pleonekteo, pleonektés and pleonexia all express a drive to gain at the expense of
others. The use of plouted and philargyria, avarice, love of money, in 1 Tim. 6:9 f.
reminds us of the mention of pleonexia in the lists of vices (~ Avarice).
F. Selter
yphua (chréma), property, wealth, means, money;
XPM KtHUa (ktéma), property, possessions, especially in later
usage landed property; bzapéic (hyparxis), property; ta bxapyovta (ta hypar-
chonta), what belongs to someone, property, goods, possessions; fioc (bios), life,
means of subsistence, property; obcia (ousia), substance, property.
CL chréma, derived from chré, it is necessary, stands for what is necessary, a thing,
or event, then goods and chattels, riches. It is found from Homer onwards,
mostly in the plur. When it is found in the sing. it normally means quantity of,
also money. ktéma, derived from ktaomai, means that which has been gained.
It is used (also Homer onwards) for possessions of every kind, but from the 4th
cent. B.c. it is confined to landed property. From Aristotle onwards hyparxis 1s
found with the meaning of existence and generally of property, riches.
oT In the LXX the words are used to render a wide range of Heb. terms. chréma
in Job 27:17 and 2 Chr. 1:11 f. is used to mean money (in the latter together
with ploutos). In Dan. 11:24, 28 it is the rich booty taken in war, and in 11:13
baggage train of an army. ktéma in Job 20:29 has the general meaning of posses-
sions, heritage (RSV), lot (NEB). In Prov. 8:18; 12:27 it is riches as a reward for >
wisdom and hard work. ta hyparchonta is found in Prov. 6:31; Gen. 13:6; 31:18;
36:6 f.; 45:20; 47:18; Eccles. 5:19; 6:2, with the general meaning of what one has,
riches, possessions. Both words interchange frequently with — ploutos or argyros,
(silver, money; — Gold art. argyrion). In general no hesitation is shown in regard-
ing the riches mentioned as good and a blessing from God (Prov. 8:21; Eccles.
5:19; 6:2; 2 Chr. 1:12). With hyparxis, however, as with — ploutos, there is found,
especially in Prov., a critical outlook on wealth, or the dangers bound up with it
(cf. Job). Possessions are not the highest good. They are trivial compared with
honour (Prov. 6:35), but they deceive a man into seeking protection and security
in them (Prov. 18:10 f.; cf. also 11:28; 28:6, 11; Sir. 11:18 f.; 27:1 ff.; 31:3, 5 f.).
NT With the exception of Mk. 10:23 and Lk. 18:24 (par. Matt. 19:23 has plousios),
chréma is found only in Acts 8:18, 20 and 24:26 and should be translated
money. The sing. is found only in Acts 4:37. The sing. of ktéma is found only in
Acts 5:1, where it is used interchangeably with chorion (vv. 3, 8), and means a
piece of land. Atémata (plur.) are the estates (Mk. 10:22 and par. Matt. 19:22;
Lk. 18:23 has plousios) which in Acts 2:45 are distinguished from other possessions
(‘property and possessions” NEB); cf. also Acts 5:1. In the NT the plur. part.
hyparchonta is commoner that the noun hyparxis (used only in Acts 2:45 and Heb.
10:34, par. to hyparchonta). It is found in Matt. 19:21; 24:17; 25:14; 1 Cor. 13:3;
Heb. 10:34 and in the Lucan writings (Lk. 8:3; 11:21; 12:15, 33, 44; 14:33; 16:1;
19:8; Acts 4:32). It means lit. the things that belong (to someone), and thus
possessions in general.
845
POSSESSIONS
Occasionally other terms which have their primary reference elsewhere are also
used to denote possessions. Thus bios, which otherwise means life (e.g. Lk. 8:14;
1 Tim. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:4) and even conduct (e.g. Wis. 4:9; 5:4; 4 Macc. 1:15; 7:7;
8:8), can also mean one’s means of subsistence and thus property, one’s worldly
goods (Mk. 12:44 par. Lk. 21:4; Lk. 8:43; 15:12, 30; 1 Jn. 2:16; 3:17). These
meanings are also borne out in secular Gk. ousia, substance, which is connected
with the vb. to be, has the sense of property, wealth in its sole NT occurrence (Lk.
15:12 f.; cf. Tob. 14:13; 3 Macc. 3:28). Again this meaning is attested in secular
Gk. Various circumlocutions are also found in the NT: hosa echeis, what you have
(Mk. 10:21 par. Lk. 18:22; Mk. 12:44; Matt. 13:44, 46; 18:25); ta idia, one’s
own (Lk. 18:28; cf. also Jn. 1:11); idion einai, to be one’s own, in the description of
the communal sharing in the Jerusalem church (‘““Now the company of those who
believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which
he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common,” Acts 4:32); to
emon, mine, to son, yours, to hémeteron, ours (Matt. 25:27; Lk. 15:31; Matt.
20:14; 25:25; Lk. 6:30; 16:12); ta par’ autés panta, all she had (which the woman
with the issue of blood had vainly spent on physicians, Mk. 5:26); ek tou echein,
out of what you have (2 Cor. 8:11; Poor, art. ptéchos, NT 4 (a), (c)); echeis
polla agatha keimena, you have many good things laid up (Lk. 12:19); tous mé
echontas, those who do not have (anything) ( 1 Cor. 11:22). |
2. A number of passages are of particular theological importance. Jesus de-
manded from the rich young ruler a complete renunciation of his possessions
for the sake of the kingdom of God (— ploutos). He was told: “‘sell what you
possess [pd/éson sou ta hyparchonta|’ (Matt. 19:21; “‘sell whatever you haye
[hosa echeis poleson|”’ Mk. 10:21; Lk. 18:22 adds “‘all [ panta]’’) ‘‘and give to the >
poor’’. His riches, however, prevented him from following Jesus’ call, for he had
ktémata polla, many estates (Matt. 19:22; Mk. 10:22; Lk. 18:23 says that he was
“very rich [plousios sphodra|’’). The fetters of possessions are so strong (+ mamo-
nas) that a rich man can only with difficulty enter the kingdom of God. But when
they are rightly used, goods and chattels can be employed for good works, as in the
cases of the women who “provided for’? Jesus and his disciples (Lk. 8:3), and
Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:8; cf. also Lk. 12:33). Luke’s extremely critical attitude towards
wealth is shown by his being the only evangelist to give the parable of the rich land
owner (12:16—21; — thésauros, NT 1 (e)) and that on the rich man and Lazarus
(16:19-31). Covetousness (12:15) seeks security in life from material possessions and
so leads a man to destruction (pleonexia; —» Avarice). The NT judges it to be one of
the worst vices in a man freed by God. On the links between the rich man and
Lazarus and the unjust steward see J. D. M. Derrett, ““Dives and Lazarus and the
Preceding Sayings” (op. cit., 78-99). ‘“‘Failure to deal righteously with mammon
leads to ‘Hell’’’ (op. cit., 90), even though the man was merely passive in his
wrongdoing, neglecting the poor.
Probably partially motivated by Jesus’ extreme demand (Lk. 12:33), but above
all by the expectation of the imminent parousia (— Present), individual members
of the primitive church in Jerusalem renounced their right to private property
(Acts 4:32, hyparchonta; 2:45, ktémata kai hyparxeis), sold it when there was need
(Acts 2:45), and gave the money to the apostles to be distributed (Acts 4: 36 f.;
5:1 f.). Ananias and Sapphira were judged not because they had kept back the
846
POSSESSIONS
proceeds of the property that they had sold, but because they had lied to the Holy
Spirit in pretending to give all to the church (Acts 5:3). What the sin of Achan
(Jos. 7) was in the OT, theirs was in the NT. On the distribution to the — poor
(Acts 6:1—7) — Serve, art. diakoned. Mary, the mother of John Mark, allowed her
house to be used as a meeting place (Acts 12:12), but seems to have retained
possession of it. Elsewhere other churches do not seem to have adopted the
community of goods of the Jerusalem church. (See further M. Hengel, Property
and Riches in the Early Church, 1974, 31-34.)
Simon Magus’ idea that he could buy the wonder-working power of the Holy
Spirit was completely mistaken (Acts 8:18, 29; — Magic, art. mageia, NT 1 (a)).
In 1 Cor. 13:3 Paul uses love as the only valid criterion for evaluating good
actions for our fellow men involving possessions. If one’s willingness to give away
one’s possessions to the poor is not an expression of love, the giver has no gain
from the action.
In the course of an exhortation to perseverance Heb. 10:34 reminds its readers
that “‘you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property [tén harpagén ton
hyparchonton hymon\, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession
and an abiding one [kreittona hyparxin kai menousan].”’ This is perhaps a reference
to the expulsion of Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius in a.D. 49. Among
them were Priscilla and Aquila (cf. Acts 18:2) and doubtless other Christian Jews
who would have suffered eviction and looting (cf. F. F. Bruce, “Christianity under
Claudius”, BJRL 44, 1961-62, 309 ff.; and The Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 1964,
268 f.). The allusion to possessions is further illustrated in the following chapter by
the example of those like ~ Abraham who “desire a better country, that is, a
heavenly one” (Heb. 11:16) and — Moses who preferred reproach suffered for the
sake of the Anointed to the treasures of Egypt (— thésauros, NT 3). It contrasts
with the attitude of Esau who forfeited his birthright for immediate material well-
being (Heb. 12:15 ff.; cf. Gen. 25:29-34; 27: 30-40; Deut. 29:18 LXX).
F. Selter
Coins in the Bible and Theological Issues
oT Although the earlier narratives of the OT contain occasional references to
the use of “‘money”’ in commercial transactions (as when Abraham purchased
the cave of Machpelah for the burial of Sarah, Gen. 23), the invention of coined
money was deferred until the 7th cent. B.c. It was evidently in Lydia (Asia Minor)
that the first coins were struck, at first in electrum, then later in gold and silver
(bearing on the obverse the forepart of a lion facing the forepart of a bull, appar-
ently in combat with each other). Very soon thereafter the Greek island of Aegina
began the first minting of silver coinage, somewhat ovoid in shape, and bearing on
the obverse the figure of a sea-tortoise. During the 6th cent. the coinage of the
Athenians (with the head of Athena in profile, looking to the right, on the obverse)
became current in the coastal regions of the Near East, including Phoenicia and
Palestine; it was also the first coinage to contain a reverse type (in this case an owl,
facing, with a sprig of olive in the upper left, and the three Greek letters, alpha,
theta, and long epsilon, on the right — an abbreviation for Athénaidn). Yet it was
not until the reign of Darius I of the Persian Empire that any government in
847
POSSESSIONS
control of Judah began to issue coins which were current in the land of Israel.
The Persian (Achaemenid) imperial coins displayed but one type throughout the
course of the empire: a robed king, wearing a tiara, kneeling on his right knee
facing to the right, holding a bow in his left hand and a lance or arrow in his right
hand. The reverse was stamped with a shapeless punch and contained no device.
The gold coins of this type were known as “‘darics” and weighed about 8.4 grams;
they are referred to in Ezr. 2:69 and Neh. 7:70 as dark*ménim. In 1 Chron. 29:7
the related word **darkonim is used as a unit of weight for the various golden vessels
offered in the time of King David for the service of God in the future temple to be
built by Solomon. Since there were no minted coins whatever back in the 10th cent.
B.C., it is evident that the Chronicler (perhaps Ezra himself) had calculated the
weight of these vessels in terms of weight-standards familiar to his own contem-
poraries.
It was apparently during the late 5th century and the century following that local
coinages sprang up within the Persian Empire, consisting especially of silver pieces,
some of which were minted under the authority of local satraps like Mazaeus
(and his predecessors, Datames and Pharnabazus) of Tarsus. These all portrayed
Baal-Tars, enthroned, facing left, with sceptre in hand; the reverse types varied
considerably, sometimes featuring a helmeted male head, or else a lion killing a
bull, or even two standing figures flanking an altar of incense. Or else there were
types minted by the rich commercial cities like Tyre and Sidon. Tyre featured the
bearded, crowned figure of Baal riding the waves upon a winged hippocamp; the
reverse displayed an Egyptian type of owl superimposed upon the shepherd’s
staff (heka) and flail of the pharaonic insignia. Sidon showed a war-galley riding the
waves, and on the reverse the Persian king riding in his chariot.
Interestingly enough there were even some issues that bore pagan types such as
these and yet were inscribed with the name Yehud (Y-H-D), the Aramaic form of
‘Judah’. Since the Torah strictly forbad the fashioning of human likenesses, or
indeed of any cult animal associated with worship, it is inconceivable that such
coins could have been minted with the sanction of the approval or sanction of the
Jewish provincial government (except possibly by the Persian governor in charge
of Jewish affairs). One type has a bearded head facing right, and on the reverse an
Athenian type of owl and olive sprig, but with the “Phoenician” letters Y-H-D to
the right. Another type (possibly minted in Gaza) shows a bearded Baal sitting on a
two-wheeled chariot, holding a plump bird on his left hand, and facing a squat
little dwarflike worshipper in the lower right corner. Across the top are the letters
Y-H-D. From the preceding description of coin-types it is apparent that they fell
into three general categories: (1) the symbol of the nation or city-state — often
represented by some animal or bird — whether lion, bull, tortoise, owl or eagle;
(2) a portrait of the patron god of the city or nation —- whether Athena or Baal
or the semi-divine Persian king; (3) some symbol of national power or wealth —
such as the war-galley or chariot or sprig of olive. Almost always there was some
clear reference to local religion or civic pride. Partly because of their lowly status
as a relatively small, poor province of the Persian Empire, the post-Exilic Jews
were in no position to mint coins of their own, even if they could have hit upon
non-cultic types which would involve no violation of the Second Commandment.
The same was true during the ensuing period of Greek domination, after the
848
POSSESSIONS
conquest of the Near and Middle East by Alexander the Great in 330 B.c. There
was undoubtedly extensive use of coined money in Palestine, but all of it was of a
pagan type. The imperial comage of Alexander himself featured the head of
Heracles in his lion headdress, and on the reverse the enthroned figure of Zeus
holding a sceptre in his left hand and an eagle of victory on his right. The gold
coins featured Athena’s head wearing the Corinthian war-helmet, and on the other
side a standing figure of the winged Nike (goddess of victory). The coinages of
King Lysimachus of Thrace and of Ptolemy of Egypt were the first to portray the
head of Alexander himself, wearing either a ram’s-horn headdress or else an ele-
phant-type, complete with trunk and tusks, suggestive of godlike powers and
prestige. But soon thereafter (probably in the 290’s) Ptolemy I began to issue coins
with his own portrait upon them, and before long the Seleucid emperors at Antioch
began to do the same. Since the Greek custom had been to portray none but gods
or demi-gods upon their coins, it is fair to conclude that the Hellenistic rulers
achieved the honour of portraiture upon their national currency only because they
themselves claimed divine status. (Interestingly enough, it was not until the Roman
senate voted divine honours for Julius Caesar that a Roman ruler ever had his
visage presented on the coinage of his time. But once the precedent had been set,
it became the invariable practice, and even the members of the Second Triumvirate,
such as Antony and Octavian, issued money with their own portraits upon it.)
Not until the 2nd century and the assertion of Jewish independence did the
Jews ever mint coins of their own, and even then it was not until sixty years after
Judas Maccabaeus had expelled the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes from Jerusalem.
Perhaps around 110 B.c. John Hyrcanus produced a very modest bronze coinage,
hardly the size of an American dime, and bearing the simple device of two cornu-
copiae bound together at the horn-tips and flanking a poppy head in the centre.
The reverse of this lepton contained a Hebrew legend in epigraphic characters
reading: ‘“‘Jonathan the High Priest, and the community of the Jews’’. His succes-
sor, Jonathan (Alexander Jannaeus), followed this example, but he also minted
another type featuring a half-opened flower and the inscription, ‘Jonathan the
King”’’; the reverse contained a compound anchor and a Greek inscription: “‘King
Alexander’’. Other types used were a war-galley or a seven-rayed star. The complete
absence of pagan symbols was thus maintained throughout the period of the Has-
monean Dynasty.
NT Even after the Roman conquest the small bronze coinage was kept largely
free of pagan religious symbolism by the Herods who reigned as vassal kings
under Roman authority. Herod the Great continued to make use of the anchor
and the double cornucopiae (although his inscriptions were always in Greek).
But he also introduced the crested helmet, the tripod bearing a bowl, and an
incense burner between two palm branches. His successor, Herod Archelaus
(4 B.c.-A.D. 6), introduced the grape-cluster and the tall, double-crested helmet.
Subsequent to his dismissal from power by the Roman government, the rule of
Palestine was partially entrusted to Herod the Tetrarch (Galilee, Samaria and
Peraea only) and. partially to a Roman procurator, such as Coponius, Valerius
Gratus, or Pontius Pilate. Symbols inoffensive to Jewish sensibilities were employed
by these Roman governors (who minted their bronze lepta with wheat ears or
849
POSSESSIONS
barley, or else with palm branches or even palm trees or cornucopiae). But Pilate
aroused considerable resentment when he ventured to employ such cultic imple-
ments as an augur’s wand (resembling a shepherd’s crook) or a simpulum — a type
of ladle used in connection with Roman sacrifice. But after Pilate was recalled and
sent into exile by Caligula, Herod Agrippa I was installed as king for seven years
(A.D. 37-44) first over part and then over all of Israel. As a nominal Jew, Agrippa
reverted to inoffensive types, such as triple ears of wheat, or a fringed umbrella
(perhaps suggesting that the king was a protective shade to his people).
It will be noted that all of these bronze coins supplied only the small change
required in simple commercial transactions. No issues in silver were ever minted
by a Jewish government until the time of the First Revolt (A.D. 67-70). This meant
that from Persian times and onward, the Jews were obliged to handle silver coins
(and gold, too, for that matter) which were issued by the Persian, Greek or Roman
government which was in control of the Near East. It is safe to say that such pagan
coins were never accepted for use in worship at the Jerusalem temple. The only
currency allowable consisted in Hasmonean or Herodian bronze lepta or dilepta,
and offerings in silver or gold had to take the form of bullion or manufactured
implements and vessels. Yet in daily life and in their business transactions, pagan
coins were in constant and familiar use.
The most notable example of bronze coinage presented in the temple treasury
was of course the contribution of two /epta (or “‘mites’’) placed in the offering box
by the indigent widow whom Christ commended (Mk. 12:42 par. Lk. 21:2). Con-
ceivably these consisted of the Pontius Pilate type described above, or else of the
less offensive coinage of the earlier procurators. But very possibly they were of the
John Hyrcanus II or Alexander Jannaeus types which are still very commonly
discovered in Jewish burial sites throughout Israel even to this day. The /epton is
also mentioned at Lk. 12:59, where the par. Matt. 5:26 has kodrantén, the Roman
quadrans.
The most celebrated discussion of the types or inscriptions of any coin referred
to in Scripture occurred during Holy Week. Jesus was accosted by some crafty
agents of the Sanhedrin who sought to entrap him in the matter of paying taxes
to the Roman government. “‘Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?’ They
had him on the horns of a dilemma, for if he answered that it was perfectly all right
to pay tribute to Rome, this would offend the religionists who opposed any support
to a pagan power. If on the other hand he declared himself opposed to the payment
of such taxes, he would incur the charge of fomenting rebellion and sedition, and he
would immediately be turned over to the Roman authorities. In answer to their
craftiness, Jesus simply asked them to produce a silver denarius from their own
pockets. Holding it up before them he then pointed out that the portrait on the
obverse was that of the Roman emperor (in all probability it was a mintage of
Tiberius, who had been reigning since A.D. 14), and the inscription bore the name
of Caesar. (Denarii of Tiberius read on the obverse: TI. CAESAR DIVI AVG. F. AVGVSTVS
‘Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus’’.) Quite obviously they
had no compunctions about using the money which Caesar had minted for them,
with all of the advantages of protection for law-abiding citizens and the safeguard-
ing of their financial security. They had no scruples about accepting the Roman
law and order and military defence against marauding invaders from the East.
850
POSSESSIONS
Therefore, their pious question concerning the legitimacy of paying taxes to the
government who guaranteed them safety and peace and order was nothing more
than arrant hypocrisy. ““Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar’s”’ — that
is, the money and support necessary for a strong, efficient government — ‘‘and to
God the things that are God’s’’ (not only their tithes and temple taxes, but also
the worship of their hearts and the faithful obedience to his revealed will).
An interesting reference to the temple poll tax is found in the episode of Matt.
17:24—27. The tax-collectors approached Peter, as a representative disciple of Jesus
and asked him whether his leader ever paid the standard contribution to the sup-
port of the temple, as required in Exod. 30:11—16. Since Jesus and his followers
were constantly itinerating from one preach-point to another, it was difficult for
tax agents to make contact with them. But now that they were back in Capernaum
once more, it was time for the matter to be dealt with. After making the point that
as the Son of God it was not really appropriate for him to pay a tax to his own
Father, Jesus directed Peter nevertheless to secure the money for payment. He
was to go down to the lake and cast in his fish-line, and pull up the first fish to
strike his bait. In it he would find a “‘stater’’, in this case the same as a tetradrachma
(Matt. 17:27) — although in classical times the stater was a mere two-drachma
piece, or else in Corinth and its colonies the stater was a three-drachma coin. But
already in Ptolemaic times the term statér was applied to the four-drachma piece,
and so quite generally in the Greco-Roman period, since the tax amounted to a
didrachmon (two-drachma piece) per person, and the coin recovered in Peter’s
fish was large enough to pay for them both, it must have been a tetradrachma —
quite possibly a Tyrian shekel. The silver coins of Tyre during the Greco-Roman
period featured a wreathed head of Baal-Melgart on their obverse, and a leftward
striding eagle on the reverse (with the inscription TYROU HIERAS KAI ASYLOU, ““Tyre
the holy city of refuge’’). It was very likely this same coin which predominated in
_ the payment of thirty “pieces of silver’ (argyria) recorded in Matt. 26:15 as the
price paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus at Gethsemane. Because of its hig
silver content and standardized weight, the Tyrian shekel was generally preferre
in Palestine, despite the paganism of its symbols. The well-known hoard of silver
coins found in 1954 at the Khirbet Qumran headquarters must have been secreted
there around A.D. 1; it consists entirely of Tyrian shekels and half-shekels of this
type. |
In his parables Jesus told the story of the housewife who was greatly distressed
to find that she had lost one of her collection of ten drachmas (Lk. 15:8 f.). She
seized her broom and began to sweep up every particle on the floor until she finally
came across the missing coin, much to her joy and satisfaction. The drachma was
about equivalent to the Roman denarius in size and value, and it was roughly
equivalent to an entire day’s wages for a day-labourer (such as the vineyard workers
of Matt. 20:2). To a woman in humble circumstances, even the loss of a single
day’s wage was a severe blow. (It is unnecessary to suppose that these coins were
perforated and strung together in a sort of headpiece or necklace, as some writers
have suggested. It was very unusual for the ancients to bore holes through the thick
type of coin which was in vogue all during Classical and Greco-Roman times; it
would result in the loss of too much silver, and greatly deface the appearance of
the coin itself.)
851
POSSESSIONS
It has already been mentioned that during the First Revolt (A.D. 67-70) the
revolutionary Jewish government minted silver coins for the first time in history.
The shekel or four-drachma piece bore a libation chalice on the obverse (with the
inscription “‘Shekel of Israel’’), and on the reverse a tripleheaded pomegranate
(and the legend, ‘Jerusalem the holy’’). But neither these nor the First Revolt
bronze lepta (featuring the amphora and the vine-leaf) find any mention in the
NT itself, for only the late Epistles of John and the book of Revelation postdate
that tragic episode in Hebrew history. G. L. Archer, Jr.
—> Avarice, — Gift, — Gold, — Parable, — Poor, — Tax, — Tithe
(a). G. L. Archer, ‘“‘Coins’, ZPEB I 902-11 (with photographs and colour illustrations); B. J.
Bamberger, ‘“‘Money-Changer’’, /DB III 435 f.; F. Banks, Coins of Bible Days, 1955; H. von
Campenhausen, ‘Early Christian Asceticism’’, in Tradition and Life in the Church: Essays and
Lectures in Church History, 1968, 90-122; M. Black, The Scrolls and the New Testament, 1961,
32-39; C. E. B. Cranfield, ‘““Riches and the Kingdom of God: St. Mark 10.17-—31”, SUT 4, 1951,
302-13; J. D. M. Derrett, ‘““The Treasure in the Field’’, Law in the New Testament, 1970, 1-16;
“The Parable of the Talents and Two Logia’’, ibid., 17-31; “‘The Parable of the Unmerciful
Servant’, ibid., 32—47; “‘The parable of the Unjust Steward’’, ibid., 48-77; ‘““Dives and Lazarus
and the Preceding Sayings’’, ibid., 78-99; ‘‘Peter’s Penny’’, ibid., 247-65; ‘“‘Render to Caesar...”’,
ibid., 313-38; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971; H. Hamburger, ‘“Money”’’, JDB III
423-35 (with photograph and line illustrations); A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece
and Rome, 1968; A. von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, (1908) 1961; F.
Hauck, thésauros etc., TDNT III 136 ff.; mamonas, TDNT IJV 388 ff.; F. Hauck and E. Bammel,
ptochos etc., TDNT VI 885-915; F. Hauck and W. Kasch, ploutos etc., TDNT VI 318-32; M.
Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 1971; Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in
Palestine in the Early Palestinian Period, \-IJ, 1974; and Property and Riches in the Early Church,
1974; A. M. Honeyman, ‘‘The Etymology of Mammon”, Archivum Linguisticum 4, 1952, 60-65;
J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 19637; and Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into
Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969; E. A. Judge, The Social
Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century, 1960; L. Kadman et al., The Dating and Meaning
of Ancient Jewish Coins, 1958; R. Koch, “‘Riches”, EBT II 775-80; K. Lake, ‘“The Communism
of Acts II and IV-VI’’, in F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity, V,
1932, 140-51; J. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 1970, 141-44, 206-9; F. W. Madden,
Coins of the Jews, 1881; H. Montefiore, “Jesus and the Temple Tax”, NTS 11, 1964-65, 60-71;
K. F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy, SBT 48, 1966; H. Preisker, periousios,
TDNT VI 57f.; B. Reicke, chréma etc., TDNT IX 480 ff.; A. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins,
1947°; and Jsrael’s History in Coins from the Maccabees to the Roman Conquest, 1953; E. Rogers,
A Handy Guide to Jewish Coins, 1914; P. Romanoff, Jewish Symbols on Ancient Jewish Coins, 1944;
M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, I-III, 1941; and The
Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, ed., P. M. Fraser, 19577; J. Z. Smith, “‘The
Social Description of Early Christianity”, in Religious Studies Review 1, 1975; E. Stauffer, Christ
and the Caesars: Historical Sketches, 1955; E. Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian
Churches, J-II (1931) 1960; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 1961 (see especially
“Finance and Public Works’’, 139-42; ‘“‘Economic Life’’, 164-77; and “‘Weights and Measures’’,
195-209; and the corresponding bibliographies, 529-34); H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old
Testament, 1974, 128-33.
(b). J. Babelon, ““Monnaie’’, Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, V, 1957, 1346-75; L. Bergson,
“Zum periphrastischen chréma’’, Eranos 65, 1967, 79-117; K. Beyschlag, ‘“‘Christentum und Ver-
anderung in der alten Kirche’, KuD 18, 1972, 26-55; K. Bornhauser, Der Christ und seine Habe
nach dem Neuen Testament, BFChTh 38, 3 1936; H. Braunert, Utopia. Antworten griechischen
Denkens auf die Herausforderung durch soziale Verhaltnisse, Verdffentlichungen der schles.holst.
Universitdtsgesellschaft, Neue Folge, 51, 1969; G. Breidenstein, Das Eigentum und seine Verteilung,
1968; N. Brockmeyer, Sozialgeschichte der Antike, Urban-Taschenbiicher 153, 1972; H. Bickers,
Die biblische Lehre vom Eigentum, 1947; P. Christophe, L’ Usage Chrétien du Droit de Propriété
dans l’Ecriture et la Tradition Patristique, 1963; H.-J. Degenhardt, Lukas, Evangelist der Armen.
Besitz und Besitzverzicht in der lukanischen Schriften, 1965; H. Donner, ““Die soziale Botschaft der
852
POSSESSIONS/POUR
Propheten im Lichte der Gesellschaftsordnung in Israel’’, Oriens Antiquus 2, 1963, 229-45; S.
Ejger, Das Geld im Talmud, 1930; K. Farner, Christentum und Eigentum bis Thomas von Aquin,
1947 (reprinted in Theologie des Kommunismus, 1969, 9-90, but without the detailed notes); M.
Fendler, ‘‘Zur Sozialkritik des Amos’’, EvTh 33, 1973, 32~53; A. Feuillet, ““Les riches intendants
du Christ”, RSR 34, 1947, 30-54; J. Gagé, Les Classes Sociales dans Il’ Empire, 1964; B. Gatz,
Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwarndte Vorstellungen, 1967; F. Geiger, Philon von Alexandria
als sozialer Denker, Tiibinger Beitrdge zur Altertumswissenschaft 14, 1932; D. Georgi, Die Ge-
schichte der Kollekte des Paulus fiir Jerusalem, ThF 38, 1965; H. Greeven, Die Hauptprobleme der
Sozialethik in der neueren Stoa und im Urchristentum, 1935; W. Haller, ‘““‘Das Eigentum im Glauben
und Leben der nachapostolischen Kirche’, 7hStKr 64, 1891, 478-563; F. Hauck, Die Stellung
der Urkirche zu Arbeit und Geld, BFChTh 2, 3, 1921; W.-D. Hauschild, “‘Christentum und
Eigentum. Zum Problem eines altkirchlichen ‘Sozialismus’ ”, ZEE 16, 1972, 34-49; J. Hemelrijk,
Penia en Ploutos, Dissertation Utrecht, 1925; F. Horst, ‘“‘Das Eigentum nach dem Alten Testa-
ment’, Kirche im Volk 2, 1949, 87-102 (reprinted in Gottes Recht. Gesammelte Studien zum
Recht im Alten Testament, ThB 12, 1961); and ‘“‘Eigentum’’, RGG? II 363 ff.; J. Jervell, ““Er kam
in sein Eigentum’’, TheolStud 10, 1957, 14 ff.; E. Kamlah, “‘Eigentum’’, BHHW I 377f.; R.
Koch, “‘Die Wertung des Besitzes im Lukasevangelium’’, Biblica 38, 1951, 151-69; H.-J. Kraus,
“Die Bedeutung des Eigentums im Deuteronomium’’, Kirche im Volk, 2, 1949, 103-11; G.
Kretschmar, “‘Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung der frithchristlichen Askese’’, Z7K
61, 1964, 27-67; H. Kreissig, Die sozialen Zussammenhange des jiidischen Krieges, Schriften
zur Geschichte und Kultur der Antike 1, 1970; W. G. Kiimmel, ‘‘Der Begriff des Eigentums
im Neuen Testament’, in Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 271-77; A. Kuschke, “‘Arm
und Reich im Alten Testament mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der nachexilischen Zeit”, ZAW
Neue Folge 16, 1939, 31-57; J. Leipoldt, Der soziale Gedanke in der alten Kirche, (1950) 1972; E.
Lohmeyer, Soziale Fragen im Urchristentum, 1921; M. Lurje, Studien zur Geschichte der wirt-
schaftlichen und sozialen Verhaltnisse im israelitisch-jtidischen Reich, BZAW 45, 1927; J. J. van
Manen, Penia en Ploutos in de Periode na Alexander, Dissertation Utrecht, 1931; P. H. Menoud,
‘““‘La Mort d’Ananias et de Saphire’”’, Mélanges Goguel, 1950, 146-54; P. A. Munch. ‘‘Das Problem
des Reichtums in den Psalmen 37, 49, 73”, ZAW Neue Folge 14, 1937, 33-46; N. Peters, Die
soziale Ftirsorge im Alten Testament, 1935; R. von Pohlmann, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und
des Sozialismus in der antiken Welt, revised by F. Oertel, I-II, 1925°; H. Preisker, “Lukas 16,
1-17’, TLZ 74, 1949, 86-92; G. Redard, “‘Recherches sur chré, chrésthai”, Bibliothéque de I’ Ecole
des Hautes Etudes, Sciences Historiques et Philologiques 303, 1953, 82-91; H. Riesenfeld, “Vom
Schatzsammeln und Sorgen — ein Thema urchristlicher Paranese. Zu Mt. vi 19-34’, in Neotesta-
mentica et Patristica. Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60.
Geburtstag tiberreicht, 1962, 47-58; E. Salin, Platon und die griechische Utopie, 1921; SB I 817-28;
IV 536-610; A. Schalit, Kénig Herodes, Studia Judaica 4, 1969; O. Schilling, Reichtum und Eigen-
tum in der altchristlichen Literatur, 1908; and ‘‘Der Kollektivismus der Kirchenvater”, 7hQ 114,
1933, 481-92; C. Schneider, Geistesgeschichte des antiken Christentums, I, 1954; W. Schrage, Die
konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Pardnese. Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Ethik,
1962; and ‘“‘Die Stellung zur Welt bei Paulus, Epiktet und in der Apokalyptik. Ein Beitrag zu I
Kor. 7.29-31”, ZTK 61, 1964, 125-54; G. Uhlhorn, Die christliche Liebestatigkeit in der alten
Kirche, 1882; and Die christliche Liebestatigkeit, (18957) 1959; H. E. Weber, ‘‘Das Eigentum nach
dem Neuen Testament’’, Kirche im Volk 2, 1949, 112-16.
Pour
[kyo éxxé@ (ekched) and ékybvv@ (ekchynno), pour out;
amévow (spend), pour out (a drink offering); zpdayvaic
(proschysis), pouring or sprinkling (of blood); aivatexyvoia (haimatekchysia),
shedding of blood.
cL Incl. Gk. the uncompounded form cheod, pour, is still in use, but the compounds,
especially ekched, pour out, gradually displace it. ekcheod is used in secular
853
POUR
Greek of pouring liquids, sometimes with the idea of draining, pouring away. A
Jewish inscription uses it of shedding the blood of an innocent martyr. It can also
be used for scattering solid objects, and, metaphorically, for squandering money.
ekchyn(n)o is a Hel. Gk. form which exists alongside it.
oT In the LXX ekcheo normally represents Heb. sapak, an equally general word
for pour, but used in purificatory rites (Num. 19:17; Exod. 30:18) and par-
ticularly frequently of the pouring or shedding of blood, either as a part of the
sacrificial ritual, or, most frequently, as a synonym for murder (cf. Gen. 9:6;
37:22; Deut. 19:10; 1 Sam. 59:7; Ps. 13:3). It is also used in the OT, as in secular
Gk., of pouring out offerings, usually of water, to Yahweh (e.g. Num. 28 f.; Jdg.
6:20: | Sam. 7:6; 2 Sam. 23:16), and to other gods (e.g. Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:18;
19:13); the technical term for offering libations (of wine) is spendo (translating
Heb. nasak).
Among non-literal uses, the most common is the expression to pour out anger,
fury on someone, used of God’s acts of — judgment (e.g. Ps. 79:6; Ezek. 7:8).
Men also pour out their soul, or their complaint, before God (1 Sam. 1:15; Ps.
142:2). One special use is the promise that God will pour out his — Spirit on men
(Joel 2:28-29 [MT 3:1-2]; Ezek. 39:29; Zech. 12:10; cf. Isa. 32:15, using a
different word, ‘arah, which normally means to be naked, bare, but here pour out.
NT 1. In the NT, ekcheo is used in the literal sense, without special theological
significance, in Matt. 9:17 par. Lk. 5:37 (of wine being ‘“‘spilled’’); Jn. 2:15
(of money “‘scattered’’); Acts 1:18 (of Judas’s bowels being “‘poured out’; —
Akeldama).
2. The use of ‘“‘to shed blood” as a synonym for murder or martyrdom is taken
over from the OT in Matt. 23:35 par. Lk. 11:50; Acts 22:20; Rom. 3:15; Rev.
16:6. The shedding or pouring of blood in the OT sacrificial ritual is referred to
in Heb. by the cognate nouns proschysis (11:28; cf. Exod. 12:22) and haimatek-
chysia (9:22). The latter is found only in Christian writings, but cf. ekchysis
haimatos, pouring out of blood (1 Ki. 18:28; Sir. 27:15).
3. These two OT senses of shedding blood, murder or martyrdom and sacrifice,
come together in the crucial words of Jesus in the institution of the — Lord’s
Supper, ““This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out [ekchynnomenon|
for many” (Mk. 14:24 par. Matt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20 reads ‘This cup which is
poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”’). Jesus is both a martyr, an
innocent victim of murder, and a sacrifice “for many’’. Several OT passages may
be alluded to in these words, but two are particularly important. ‘“This is my blood
of the covenant”? echoes Exod. 24:8, the sacrificial offering which instituted the
old covenant of Sinai, now to be replaced (as Jer. 31: 31-34 predicted) with a new —
covenant, sealed by Jesus’ sacrificial death. “‘For many” points to Isa. 53:11, 12,
the ‘“‘many’’ who were to be made righteous by the death of God’s Servant bearing
their sin; he is said in Isa. 53:12 to have “‘poured out’’ his soul to death, and while
the verbs in both Heb. (he“¢rdh) and LXX (paredothé) are different from Sapak and
ekcheo, an allusion to this phrase is surely intended (— Empty, art. kenos, NT 3).
The pouring out of Jesus’ blood, then, was the sacrifice which removed the sin of
‘““‘many’’, and introduced them to a new covenant relationship with God. It is this
pouring out that is symbolized in the cup at the Lord’s Supper.
854
PoUR/PRAYER
4. Paul takes up the pouring of libations as a metaphor for his approaching
martyrdom, in his use of spend in Phil. 2:17 and 2 Tim. 4:6. The libation is not,
like the blood sacrifices, an atoning offering, but an expression of dedication to
God.
5. The more metaphorical uses of pour in the OT are also echoed in the NT.
The pouring out of God’s fury provides the imagery of the seven bowls of the wrath
of God poured out in Rev. 16, where ekcheé occurs 8 times in this sense. But more
characteristically, God’s love is “poured out’ in the hearts of believers (Rom.
5:5), and this has been done by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, who is several
times said, following Joel 2:28—29, to have been “‘poured’”’ upon those who receive
Christ (Acts 2:17-18, 33; 10:45; Tit. 3:6). (Note also the use of being “filled” with
the Spirit, — Fullness, NT 4.) The use of such an apparently impersonal term, in
contrast with the very personal language used about the Spirit elsewhere in the
NT, is accounted for by the influence of the OT usage mentioned above.
—> Blood, — Fullness, — Pentecost, — Spirit R. T. France
J. Behm, ekched, TDNT II, 467—469.
Prayer, Ask, Kneel, Beg, Worship, Knock
In the NT the most comprehensive term for “‘to pray’ is proseuchomai. It denotes
prayer in general, and may be used without further qualification. On the other
hand, deomai and deésis, like aited and aitéma, involve spoken supplication. Their
content is usually indicated, as is the person to whom the request is made. These
terms are also confined to definite acts of praying. Occasionally, in the case of
aiteod and aitéma, the basic meaning of wanting something is still present, so that
it has a rather more forceful and sometimes demanding tone, whereas erdtad, when
it means to request, is more intimate. Prayer to God may also be expressed by boad
boé and kraz6, both vbs. meaning to cry, shout (— Cry). They are generally used
when prayer to God or to Jesus Christ arises from great human need or distress
and is therefore a cry for help (e.g. in the case of sickness or fear). gonypeted also
expresses urgency in prayer or in making a request, whereas proskyneo tends to
imply worship, adoration and obeisance. The prayer of praise and thanksgiving
is expressed by ained and eucharisted (— Thank). The vb. kroud, knock, is used
metaphorically of seeking access to God.
aité@ (aited), ask, ask for, demand; aitnya (aitéma),
QITE@ : ; nae
request, demand; adzaitéw (apaited), demand back;
é€aitéopal (exaiteomai), ask for, demand; a (paraiteomai), ask for,
request, excuse, refuse, decline.
cL The basic meaning of aited is to want something, to demand something as one’s
share. Hence in profane Gk. aiteO means both to ask and to demand. The
mid. form is best translated by to ask for oneself, or occasionally by to desire for
oneself. The noun aitéma, therefore, means the thing asked for, both in the sense
of a request or desire, and of a demand (e.g. aitéma tyrannikon, the demand of a
tyrant, Plutarch, Demetr. 3). apaited intensifies the basic idea of demanding (e.g.
855
PRAYER
to call to account, Plato, Rep. 10, 599b), usually in the sense of demanding back,
such being the force of the prefix ap-. The derivative exaiteomai means to ask for
oneself, while paraiteomai, because of the sense attaching to the prefix par-, means
basically to ask to be released from an obligation, to present one’s apologies.
oT The Heb. equivalent is sa’al, meaning to ask, require, wish, desire, request for
oneself (Deut. 10:12; Jdg. 5:25; 1 Sam. 12:13; Job 31:30 and passim). Used
with reference to God it approximates closely to the idea of prayer and is often
associated with thanksgiving for answered prayer (e.g. 1 Sam. 1:20; Pss. 105[104]:
40; 21[20]:4). It also means to ask, inquire (Gen. 24:57, LXX erétad); in legal
language to examine (Deut. 13:15, LXX ereunad); to consult, seek counsel (Jdg.
18:5, LXX eperotad). S@al is rendered by aited only when the desire is for something
quite specific (Exod. 3:22; Jos. 14:12; Jdg. 5:25; 1 Sam. 12:17); e.g. Hannah asks
for herself a son from Yahweh and Eli promises her ‘“‘what you have asked from
him’ (1 Sam. 1:17). Similarly in the Pss., whenever this verb expresses a promise
of answered prayer, this must always be seen against the background of a specific
request (Pss. 2:8; 21[20]:4; 27[26]:4; 40[39]:6; 78[77]:18; 105[104]:40; cf. Isa.
7:11 f.; 58:2; Prov. 30:7 [24:30]).
NT 1. In the NT aited, aiteomai (occurring 70 times) generally means to request,
ask (for oneself). It occurs with more or less the same degree of frequency in
all four Gospels (Matt. 14 times; Mk. 9; Lk. 11; Jn. 11) and Acts (10 times) rarely
in Paul (once each in | Cor. and Col., and twice in Eph.). It is found 5 times each
in Jas. and Jude and once in | Pet. but not at all in the Pastorals, Heb. and Rev.
(a) On a human level the mid. form of the vb. (aiteomai etc.) is used almost always
in addressing superiors (Matt. 14:7; 27:20; Lk. 23:23; Acts 9:2 and passim) and
therefore has a somewhat official flavour. Generally speaking, the act. form of the
verb (aiteé etc.) has no special nuances. Only in Matt. 5:42 is it clear from the
context that aited has a trace of unpleasantness about it: to demand something
unpleasant, or at least to ask in a way which the other person feels to be unpleasant
(hence aited could virtually be translated here by “to approach” or “‘to accost’’).
D. Hill suggests that the two clauses in this verse are parallel and that aited here
means to ask for a loan (cf. Exod. 22:25; The Gospel of Matthew, New Century
Bible, 1972, 128). Jesus emphasizes that the disciple should respond even to requests
such as this (cf. Matt. 7:7, 8). The ethical implications of this should be noted:
I am to overcome my reluctance and open both heart and hand to the person
making the request, for the request is nothing less than God calling me to open
my heart to him and be obedient.
(b) In the religious sphere, i.e. in those passages when a request is made to God,
no difference in meaning is discernible between the act. and mid. forms of the vb.
In the nature of the case, such requests enter the realm of supplicatory prayer (cf.
Matt. 21:22, to ask in prayer), though in the NT several other words are used,
sometimes paired with aited, to express the idea of making supplication; e.g. >
proseuchomai (Mk. 11:24; Col. 1:9), which usually remains unqualified and indi-
cates prayer generally; or — gonypeted, to bend the knee (cf. Eph. 3:13 f.), which
particularly stresses the suppliant’s humble posture before God. erdtad, too,
occurs in parallel with aited (1 Jn. 5:16), though as a rule it is used where there is a
close relationship between the parties concerned, e.g. between the disciples and
856
PRAYER
Jesus, and between Jesus and God; when the disciples address requests to God,
however, aited is generally used. erdtad originally meant to ask a question (in a
dialogue) and has retained its intimate conversational character. Another word for
to ask in the NT is — deomai, generally used where the request springs from a
concrete situation (hence frequently for intercession).
It is striking that aited 1s never used of Jesus’ own requests and prayers, but
always erdtad or deomai (e.g. Jn. 14:16; 16:23-26; Lk. 22:32). This may be
connected with the peculiarity of erdtad mentioned above.
(c) It is significant that, wherever the NT speaks of requests made to God, it
emphasizes that such requests are heard (cf. Matt. 6:8; 7:7—11; 18:19; 21:22; Jn.
14:13 f.; 15:7, 16; 16:23 f., 26; 1 Jn. 3:22; 5:14 f.; Jas. 1:5). It is as if the NT
witnesses wished particularly to encourage men to pray, by assuring the suppliant
that his requests are heard by God. The NT is aware that this certainty keeps all
prayer alive; let such certainty become weakened or diminished through doubt,
and prayer dies.
What basis does the NT give for this certainty? In Matt. 7:8 the fact that
requests are heard is stated as a basic principle of the — kingdom of God: “‘Every-
one who asks receives.’ This principle is here the foundation for the injunction
and its accompanying promise; “‘Ask and it will be given to you.” But the ultimate
foundation is given in such passages as Matt. 6:8; Jn. 15:16; 16:23, 26f.; Col.
1:9-12 and especially Matt. 729-11. God is the Father who loves his own more
than an earthly father loves his son, and who therefore cannot permit their requests
to be unavailing, but gives them what they need. Ultimately, therefore, the reason
why a person who asks is certain of being heard, is the certainty, given by Jesus
to his own, of God’s fatherly goodness and love. Implicit in these passages is a
further certainty which runs through the whole Bible and undergirds everything it
says: the certainty that God is a living God who hears and sees, and who has a
heart full of compassion.
As God deals with us, so should we deal with our neighbour and respond to his
requests (Matt. 5:42). We are to give to him because we experience afresh every
day the generosity and fatherly goodness of God.
(d) The NT repeatedly makes the point, however, that the prayer which God hears
must be the right kind of prayer. This is alluded to in Matt. 7:7 f., where the vbs.
to —> seek and to knock (— krouo) are used in parallel with to ask. Frequently in
the Bible, seeking has God as its object; it denotes a God-orientated attitude on
the part of man. This gives a clue as to what constitutes true prayer. It must be in
keeping with the nature of him to whom it is addressed, in which case our requests
will be well-pleasing to God and in accordance with his will (cf. 1 Jn. 5:14: to ask
something ‘‘according to his will’). To ask from God means to ask from him
something right and good (Matt. 7:11). Lk. interprets this specifically as asking
for the Holy — Spirit (Lk. 11:13). In other places true prayer is described as asking
in —> faith (Matt. 21:22; Jas.1:5f.; note the affinity between Jas. and Matt.).
In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the
almighty One with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all
things may be expected. To doubt God is to do him an injustice, for it belittles his
deity, misjudges his character, and therefore receives nothing from him (Jas. 1:7).
But true prayer is bound up with faith, i.e. with the certainty of being heard. The
857
PRAYER
NT encourages such a degree of certainty that the suppliant can believe he has
actually received his request at the very moment of asking (Mk. 11:24; 1 Jn. 5:15).
The corresponding passages in the Johannine writings expand the idea of asking
in faith: it is said to arise from “‘his words remaining in us” (Jn. 15:7), i.e. from
our being in such close union with Jesus and his word that our asking is sure to be
in accordance with his will. 1 Jn. 3:22 moves rather more into the sphere of ethics:
‘““we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and
do what pleases him’’, i.e. because our asking springs from a right attitude to God.
This verse presents in brief summary the implications of being united with Christ
in our prayers. Elsewhere Jn. describes true prayer as ‘“‘asking in the name of Jesus”’
(Jn. 14:13 f.; 15:16; 16:24, 26; -- Name). Since such prayer is heard, and since I
can be certain of the fact, the result is —~ joy (Jn. 16:24). Matt. 18:19 may be rele-
vant here: united prayer by several disciples indicates that all selfish desires have
been renounced, for selfish prayer is false and receives nothing from God (Jas.
4:3; Mk. 10:35).
2. When the object of aited is a subordinate person, it easily assumes the meaning
to require, demand (Lk. 1:63; Acts 16:29); similarly when a creditor demands
back from a debtor goods given on loan or trust, or requires an account of them
(predicated of God in Lk. 12:48). In 1 Pet. 3:15 “‘to require an account”’ (of the
Christian’s hope) means to demand proof of its truth and credibility, or simply to
demand information.
This meaning throws light on the implications lying behind the Jews’ demand
for ‘“‘signs’”’ (1 Cor. 1:22; — Miracle, art. sémeion). When man takes this attitude,
he is in fact setting himself above God and calling him to account; he is demanding
that God should justify himself in relation to what he had done in Christ.
3. (a) The word aitéma occurs in its non-religious sense in Lk. 23:24. In its
religious sense, i.e. when addressed to God, it likewise means a request and especially
any individual request viewed in relation to its content (e.g. Phil. 4:6; 1 Jn. 5:15).
(b) The compound vb. apaited often carries the intensified meaning to demand,
but is used particularly in the sense of reclaiming either stolen goods (Lk. 6:30b,
where the command “‘Give to every one who begs from you”’ is expanded and at
the same time brought into sharper focus), or goods loaned out for a limited
period (Lk. 12:20, where God requires back man’s life, the vb. itself indicating
where the true ownership lies; cf. aitésousin in Lk. 12:48b: “and of him to whom
men commit much they will demand the more’’).
exaiteomai occurs only in Lk. 22:31 in the sense of to demand that someone
(in this case Peter) be handed over. This demand has been made by -> Satan to
Peter’s master, namely to God himself, with the alleged purpose of testing the
genuineness and steadfastness of Peter’s faith, but with the ulterior motive of
bringing about his downfall.
(c) In Mk. 15:6 paraiteomai means to ask for someone’s release, while in Lk.
14:18 f. it means to ask for one’s own release, in this case from the obligation of
accepting an invitation, i.e. to present one’s apologies. Should the obligation be
considered intolerable, then the vb. can mean to refuse, decline (e.g. Acts 25:11,
with reference to the Roman death penalty; Heb. 12:19, 25, with reference to God
and his word); or to reject (e.g. 1 Tim. 4:7, “‘godless and silly myths’’; 5:11,.the
enrolment of younger women in the church’s list of widows); 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit.
858
PRAYER
3:10. In the last-mentioned passages, disciplinary measures are in view both in
regard to doctrine and in regard to church government, as befitted the situation
being experienced by the recipients of the Pastoral Epistles. Hence, these acts of
refusal or rejection begin to acquire an official character, though whether Tit. 3:10
refers to excommunication or merely to the breaking off of — fellowship (as in
1 Tim. 6:5, cf. AV) must remain an open question. H. Schénweiss
; vovv (gony), knee; yovuretém (gonypeted), fall on one’s
| yowneréo knees, kneel down before.
CL In the Gk. world, which adopted this custom from the Orient, kneeling was
practised by a slave before his master and by a suppliant before the gods, but
the practice was usually expressed not by gonypeteo but by proskynésis and hiketeia
even though the basic idea is different (— proskyned, lit. to kiss, and thus to worship).
oT The oriental:ceremony of kneeling appeared in Israel only when its kings
adopted the style of the great oriental monarchs and demanded similar tokens
of servility (1 Chr. 29:20). At the same time, however, there is evidence that the
widespread oriental custom of kneeling before the gods was also adopted, so that
in the OT falling prostrate is a sign of submission and homage, of humility and
awe before Almighty God (Ps. 95:6). In addition, the OT characteristically looks
forward to the practice being continued in the messianic age of salvation (Isa. 45:
23).
NT 1. Apart from Heb. 12:12 (cf. Isa. 35:3), gony, knee, occurs in the NT only
in association with verbs in phrases meaning to bend the knee, kneel before.
In the NT the plur. ta gonata is combined with tithenai (Mk. 15:19; Lk. 5:8; 22:41;
Acts 7:60; 9:40; 20:36; 21:5) or kamptein (Rom. 11:4 quoting | Ki. 19:18; 14:11
quoting Isa. 45:23; Eph. 3:14; Phil. 2:10) to give the phrase to bow the knees. It
expresses :
(a) Awe before a superior or homage before a king, i.e. recognition of his might
and sovereignty (as in Mk. 15:19, where the phrase occurs in parallel with >
proskyneo, with no real difference in meaning); the adoration and veneration
which is due to God alone and not to any idol (Rom. 11:4); the recognition of God
as the supreme judge (Rom. 14:11) or the acknowledgment that Jesus, in his
universal majesty and cosmic significance, is Lord of all (Phil. 2:10).
(b) The phrase is particularly meaningful in Lk. 5:8, where it expresses the
humble attitude of a man who, having received of Christ’s abundant grace, recog-
nizes both his sinful and lost condition and the wholly unmerited nature of the gift.
His falling down before Jesus is here a sign of repentance, that change of direction
which marks the beginnings of faith. Similarly in Jn. 9:38 proskyneo is a sign of
faith in Jesus.
(c) In other passages falling on one’s knees is simply the gesture associated with
prayer (cf. — proseuchomai, —> deomai, — aited), emphasizing its earnestness and
urgency (e.g. Lk. 22:41; Acts 7:60; 9:40).
2. The simple vb. gonypeteé is also used (e.g. Matt. 27:29), especially to intensify
859
PRAYER
the urgency of a request or question (to ask on bended knee), e.g. Matt. 17:14;
Mk. 1:40 (cf. the parallel use of — proskyneé in Matt. 8:2); 10:17.
H. Schénweiss
O€opial (deomai), ask, request, beseech, beg; dénaic
po LL | 6(deésis), a request, entreaty; zpoadéopal (prosdeomai),
need (in addition or further); iketypia (hiketéria), supplication; évtevdéic
(enteuxis), petition, prayer.
| O€opal
CL The basic meaning of deomai is to lack, be in need of (cf. prosdeomai), from
which developed the meaning to request, beseech; similarly in the case of the
noun deésis.
oT 1. In the LXX deomai is used with the meaning to beseech, quite often repre-
senting the Heb. hanan (hith.), to beg for favour. Thus Esther besought the
king (Est. 8:3), and Jacob likewise the angel (Hos. 12:4). Job, ostracized and in
misery, had to beseech his own servant (Job 19:16). The suppliant pleads with
God for mercy (1 Ki. 8:33-47; Ps. 30:8; 14:1). But deomai can also translate
halah (piel), to appease, placate. The person praying attempts to placate God’s
anger by his entreaties (Exod. 32:11; 1 Ki. 13:6; Zech. 8:21; Jer. 26:19). The
prayer can be accompanied by an offering (1 Sam. 13:12; —» Sacrifice) or associated
with renunciation of sin (Dan. 9:13). Sometimes deomai stands for the particle
bi or n@ (Gen. 43:20; 44:18; Exod. 4:10; Num. 12:13) in the sense of “‘if it please
you...’ “by your leave. ..’’, used when addressing a superior.
2%. The noun deésis is used in the LXX to translate several Heb. words including
t°hinndah, supplication (e.g. 1 Ki. 8:28, 30, 38, 45, 49, 52, 54; 9:3; Pss. 6:9; 55[54]:1);
the related tah*niin (e.g. Pss. 28[27]:2, 6; 31[30]:22; 86[85]:6; 116[114]:1; 130
[129]:2; 140[139]:6; 143[142]:1); rinnadh, a cry of lamentation, a prayer of lament
(e.g. Pss. 17[16]:1; 61[60]:1; 88[87]:2; 106[105]:44), and Ssaw‘ah, a cry for help (e.g.
in Ps. 34[33]:17; 39[38]:12; 40[39]:1; 145[144]:19). It is used only for supplication
and calling upon God in prayer, often standing alongside proseuché, prayer (e.g.
in 1 Ki. 8:38, 45; Ps. 6:9; 17:1; 39:12; Jer. 11:14). It is thus largely synonymous
with the latter (> proseuchomai).
NT In the NT deomai occurs only with the meaning to ask request, beseech, beg.
1. It is used in a general sense as a courtesy formula, without any particular
object or object clause (cf. the English phrase “I beg you’’), followed by direct
speech (Acts 8:24; 21:39) or by an infinitive (Acts 26:3).
2. In some passages deomai is used in its full sense of making earnest entreaty,
even imploring. There is a warmth, an attractiveness, a winsomeness about it, as
in 2 Cor. 5:20 (cf. Acts 2:40); 8:4; 10:2; Gal. 4:12.
3. In all other cases deomai has the religious sense of beseeching Jesus or God.
The requests made are quite specific, arising out of real need and expecting definite
help of an external or a spiritual nature. Help in a situation of external need is
sought from Jesus in Lk. 5:12; 9:38. Passages such as Lk. 8:28; 9:38 indicate that
with deomai the reason for the request is generally given (cf. also the following
passages, but cf. Lk. 1:13). 1 Thess. 3:10 shows how even an apparently external
860
PRAYER
request may be directed to a spiritual end, so that here the distinction between
external and internal is no longer operative.
Prayer should be made to God for forgiveness (Acts 8:22); for labourers to
bring in God’s harvest (Matt. 9:38; — Seed, Harvest); and for ability to stand on
the last day (Lk. 21:36). In the latter verse, as in many other passages including
some already mentioned, to ask 1s used absolutely, 1.e. without God specifically
mentioned as direct object. In such cases, of course, the direct object has to be
supplied.
4. If the request is made not in one’s own interest but on behalf of someone else,
then deomai means to intercede (e.g. Acts 8:24; Rom. 10:1; 2 Cor. 1:11). When,
as frequently happens, the content of the intercession is not stated, the vb. indicates
that brotherliness which constrains one Christian to plead with God on behalf of
another (e.g. Phil. 1:4; Eph. 6:18). Thus intercession is often the visible and
practical expression of that heartfelt affection and fellowship which exist among
Christians (e.g. 2 Cor. 9:14; 2 Tim. 1:3), an idea implicit, probably, in other
passages also. That Paul hrghly valued such intercession and expected great things
from it, is seen from such passages as 2 Cor. 1:11; Phil. 1:19. Jas. 5:16 speaks in
precisely the same vein. Its point is further sharpened by the phrase “the supplica-
tion of a righteous man”’ (i.e. of a believer, cf. v. 15, whose life bears out his faith)
and the adj. qualifying deésis, namely energoumené, energetic, active, effective.
This comes about when the supplication involves living, dynamic fellowship and
genuine conversation with God — which in itself is a gift from God himself. This is
exemplified by — Elijah (v. 17; cf. 1 Ki. 17:1; 18:1). Similarly 1 Pet. 3:12 (quoting
Ps. 34:16) says that the prayer of the “‘righteous”’ is heard by God (on prayer being
heard — aited).
5. Whenever the request is addressed to God, deomai quite naturally assumes the
meaning of to pray, and can often be so translated (likewise the noun deésis,
prayer). This is frequently the case when no content is stated (e.g. Acts 10:2;
Heb. 5:7, where the noun stands alongside hiketéria, entreaty, supplication,
originally that of a person seeking protection). Hence, as in the OT, deésis often
occurs with proseuché, in which case the latter has the more general meaning of the
two (— proseuchomai); e.g. Rom. 1:10; Eph. 6:18; Phil. 4:6, where both are used
with the further addition of aitéma, an individual request or petition (— aiteo);
1 Tim. 2:1, where the two are complemented by enteuxis, intercession, petition,
appeal, prayer.
Prayer is the most important evidence of true Christian faith (1 Tim. 2:1). It is
the very mark of a Christian (1 Tim. 5:5; cf. Acts 9:11). Even Jesus prayed (Heb.
5:7; cf. Lk. 22:44) and made intercession (Lk. 22:32).
prosdeomai occurs only in Acts 17:25 in the sense of to need, be in need of. In
this word the original sense of deomai reappears, and Lk. uses it here to underscore
the self-sufficiency and complete independence of God who is highly exalted above
all that is merely human. H. Schénweiss
F Tpocedyopal (proseuchomai), to pray, entreat; evyopal
(euchomai), request, vow; ebyy (euché), prayer, oath,
vow; zpoaevyn (proseuché), prayer.
861
PRAYER
CL euchomai is a technical term for invoking a deity and so covers every aspect of
such invocation: to request, entreat, vow, consecrate etc. (similarly the noun:
request, entreaty, vow); in a word: to pray; prayer. Since the vb.’s basic meaning is
““to make confident statements about oneself”’, it can also mean to boast, brag and
assert.
In profane Gk. prayer is often accompanied by an offering, the object of which is
to make the gods favourably disposed. Here prayer mostly takes the form of sup-
plication. Though used originally, as early as Mycenean Gk., almost exclusively
with reference to tangible benefits, at a later period (e.g. in the Tragic Poets), the
words have in view spiritual and ethical values (e.g. Aesch., Cho. 140 f.; Eur.,
Medea 635 ff.) or denote prayer for preservation from spiritual or moral harm.
Characteristically, the assurance of being heard is lacking, belief in an omnipresent
divine principle excluding all possibility of an epiphany. In the piety associated
with the Hellenistic mysteries the worshipper at prayer experiences the nearness of
the deity, especially at those rare moments of climax when he is granted a sight
of the god concerned. At such times all prayer is extinguished, and is replaced by
silent rapture. Intercession, and supplication for earthly things, are totally absent
from this kind of prayer.
oT 1. In the OT prayer is all-important because of that which both characterizes
and constitutes the nation of Israel, his relation to his God. The whole history
of Israel is therefore permeated and borne along by prayer. At all its important
points man is found in converse with God. This is true even when no use is made
of those specific Heb. terms for to pray, such as ‘dtar or pdlal, both meaning to
pray, request, and the noun f¢°pillah, prayer. Expressions like to speak, to call
or to > cry are frequently used instead. To indicate intense emotional involvement,
the Hebrew used vbs. such as to groan, to sigh or to weep (— Lament). But however
urgently he prayed, the OT suppliant never forgot that he was addressing the
holy, almighty God (an utter impossibility apart from God’s condescending kind-
ness and grace). This is shown by the frequent use of the vb. histah*wah which
really means to prostrate oneself (before superior) (— proskyneo), and which may
therefore indicate man’s customary posture in prayer, though there is also evidence
of prayer being offered from a standing position. The parallel expression, to fall
down on one’s knees, is also used occasionally. Such phrases are intended to
indicate the — humility of mind which must always characterize a man as he prays.
In addition the OT contains many expressions for the prayer of praise and thanks-
giving, e.g. the familiar vb. Adlal, to praise, glorify, extol (hal*lj-yah, praise the
Lord; yah = Yahweh; — Amen, art. hallélouia), and a whole range of words
intensifying the idea of praise: to shout with joy, to exult, to sing (often to instru-
mental accompaniment; — Thank).
In the LXX proseuchomai normally translates pdlal in the hithpael form which is
the standard Heb. vb. meaning to pray: Gen. 20:7, 17; 1 Sam. 1:10, 12, 26 f.; 2:1;
7:5; 8:6; 12:19, 23; 2 Sam. 7:27; 1 Ki. 8:28 ff., 33, 35, 42, 44, 48, 54; 13:6; 2 Ki.
4:33; 6:17 f.; 19:15, 20; 1 Chr. 17:25; 2 Chr. 6:19 ff., 24, 26, 32, 34, 38; 7:1, 14;
30:18; 32:20, 24; 33:13; Ezr. 10:1; Neh. 1:4, 6; 2:4; 4:9(3); Pss. 5:2; 32(31):6;
72(71):15; Jon. 2:2; 4:2; Isa. 16:12; 37:15, 21; 38:2; 44:17; 45:14, 20; Jer. 7:6;
11:14; 14:11; 29(36):12; 32(39):16; 37(44):3; 42(49):2, 4, 20; Dan. 9:4, 20: It
862
PRAYER
translates pdlal in the piel in 1 Sam. 2:25 and the noun f°pillah, prayer, in Ps. 109
(108): 4. It translates the vb. ‘dtar, entreat, in Exod. 10:17 and Jdg. 13:8; napal, fall,
in the hithpael in 2 Esd. 10:1; the Aram. s°/a’, pray, in Dan. 6:11(10) and 2 Esd.
6:10. It is without Heb. equivalent in 1 Sam. 14:45; Tob. 3:1; 6:17; 8:4 f.; 12:12;
Jud. 11:17; Est. 5:1; Wis. 13:17; Bar. 1:11, 13; Dan. 3:24 f. LXX; Dan.Th. 9:21;
1 Macc. 3:44; 4:30; 7:40; 11:71; 2 Macc. 1:6; 20:10; 12:44; 15:14; 3 Macc. 6:1;
4 Macc. 4:11.
The noun proseuché normally translates the corresponding Heb. noun f°pillah,
prayer: 2 Sam. 7:27; 1 Ki. 8:28 f., 38, 45, 49, 54; 9:3; 2 Ki. 19:4; 20:5; 2 Chr.
6:19 f., 29, 39; 7:12, 15; 30:27; 33:18 f.; Neh. 1:6, 11; 11:17; Pss. 4:1; 6:9;
17(16):1; 35(34):13; 39(38):12; 42(41):8; 54(53):2; 55(54):1; 61(60):1; 64(63):1;
65(64):2; 66(65):19 f.; 69(68):13; 80(79):4; 84(83):8; 86(85):6; 88(87):2, 13;
102(101):1, 17; 109(108):7; 141(140):2, 5; 143(142):1; Prov. 28:9; Jon. 2:8;
Hab. 3:1; Isa. 38:5; 56:7; Jer. 11:14; Lam. 3:8, 44; Dan. 9:3, 17, 21. In addition
it occurs in the titles of various Pss. (17[16]; 86[85]; 90[89]; 102[101]; 142[141)]).
It translates g6/, voice, in Pss. 64(63):1; 130(129):2; ¢°hinnah, supplication for
favour, | Ki. 8:45; 2 Chr. 6:35; and Dan. 9:20; and tah*niin, supplication (for
favour) in Dan. 9:18. It is without Heb. equivalent in 1 Ki. 9:3; Tob. 3:16; 12:8, 12,
15; 13:1; Jud. 12:6; 13:3, 10; Pss. 61(60):5; 88(87):14; Wis. 18:21; Sir. 3:5;
34(31):26; 35(32):17; 39:5, 7; 51:1, 13; Hab. 3:16; Isa. 38:9; 60:7; 1 Mace.
3:46; 5:33; 7:37; 12:11; 2 Macc. 1:23 f.; 3 Macc. 6:16; 7:20.
2. Prayer in the OT is characterized by being directed to the one God, who is
both the God of Israel and at the same time the Lord of the nations and of the
whole earth, having revealed himself as such to his people (1 Ki. 8:22 ff.; 2 Ki.
19:15). Accordingly the Israelite always prays first as a member of his people, not
as an individual (Pss. 35:18; 111:1), and he knows what to expect of God. He
will (Pss. 3:4; 18:6; 65:2; Jer. 29:12). He prays therefore with firm confidence in
God (Ps. 17:6 f.); he experiences temptation and doubt, to be sure, but these are
possible only against the background of such confidence. He knows too that in the
eyes of a holy God there is no question of his prayers counting as a work of piety
which God then has to honour with his blessing. (Contrast the prayer of > Elijah,
the prophet of Yahweh, with that of the priests of Baal, for whom it is nothing
more than a technique, aimed at prevailing on their god by means of a torrent of
words, | Ki. 18:26, 29.) He also knows that God is a person. Therefore, he prays
in a thoroughly personal and specific fashion, aware that he is actually speaking to
God, not merely invoking some dumb deity (Gen. 28:22-33; 1 Sam. 1:10 f.;
Ps. 77:1-11). Such speaking to God can become a veritable wrestling with God,
especially in the case of intercession (Exod. 32:11-14; Num. 14:13-22; Deut.
9:26—-29; Neh. 1:4-11). Typical are the weapons with which the suppliant fights:
he appeals to God’s — promises, reminds him of his deeds of salvation in the past,
particularly of his election of Israel and their deliverance from Egypt; he appeals
to God’s honour and — glory and to his very nature, which is one of forbearance,
—» grace and — mercy (cf. the last mentioned passages).
In addition, the suppliant thanks God for the miracles he has wrought in the
history of his people (Pss. 105; 106) and asks for further guidance and contin-
ued deliverance from all possible distresses. Prayer and thanksgiving can cover
863
PRAYER
practically all the material and spiritual needs both of the individual and of the
community, their whole life acquiring through prayer a lasting and intensive
Godward orientation.
As an aid to prayer mention is sometimes made of — fasting (Neh. 1:4; Ezr.
8:23; Joel 1:14; 2:12, 15-17; Jer. 14:12), probably as an expression of that humble
penitence before God which should lie at the root of all prayer.
3. Prayer is not restricted to any special place of worship but can take place
anywhere (Gen. 24:26 f., 63), though of course it is specially fostered in the early
sanctuaries and later in the — temple at Jerusalem.
4. The OT distinguishes between true and false prayer in the following manner.
True prayer is of the — heart, i.e. it involves the whole person and means that a
man comes before God with his whole being and in an attitude of humble sub-
mission (Jer. 29:12 ff.). False prayer, by contrast, is offered merely “with the lips’,
1.€. a man merely utters (or simply repeats) words and phrases with no self-surrender
or offering of his “‘heart” and life to God, except perhaps as a pure formality, with
no real intention of fulfilling the will of God as revealed, e.g. in his commandments
(Isa. 1:15 f.; 29:13; Amos 5:23 f.).
In this same context, the OT also speaks of hindrances to prayer, which make an
answer difficult or even impossible to obtain, e.g. disobedience (Isa. 1:15-17;
59:1 f.; Deut. 1:43-45), lovelessness towards one’s fellowmen (Isa.58:3-10),
injustice (Mic. 3:1—4). These characteristics of OT prayer are all exemplified with
especial clarity in the Book of Psalms, a unique collection of prayers for use in
public worship and by the individual.
5. Prayer also played a large part in the piety of Rabbinic Judaism. Of all devout
exercises, fasting and praying were the most prominent, but although the texts of
prayers found at Qumran indicate the great variety of prayers, both as regards
forms and content (see especially the hymns, 1QH; — Song), which were still in use
at the time of Christ, — Pharisaic orthodoxy had been extending its systematiza-
tion, from the closing years of the first cent. B.c. onwards to include the piety of
prayer. This applied not merely to the public prayers offered in the synagogue,
which included the ancient Shema (s*ma‘; Deut. 6:4 ff.; — Hear, art. akoud, NT
3) and the Eighteen Benedictions (5°’mdneh ‘esréh; 18 petitions, referring particu-
larly to the salvation of the individual and of the community) but also to private
prayer, e.g. on the left arm and the forehead there were to be prayer straps, to
which were attached small cylinders containing papyrus scrolls with Bible texts
on them -—an erroneously literal compliance with Exod. 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8;
11:18; cf. Matt. 23:5; — Guard, art. phylasso, NT 4. The prayers handed down
from individual rabbis prove to be remarkably uniform. The idea of achieving
righteousness dominated the whole of their piety and left its imprint upon prayer.
H. Schénweiss
6. The major element in the daily rabbinic liturgy was the Shema which con-
sisted of three OT passages (Deut. 6:4~-9; 11:13-21; Num. 15:37-41). It was said
both morning and evening with set benedictions (two preceding and one following
in the morning; two preceding and two following in the evening; cf. Berakoth 1:4;
text in R. A. Stewart, Rabbinic Theology, 1961, 178-83). In addition, the Tephillah
864
PRAYER
or Eighteen Benedictions was said thrice daily. Much of this material was incorpora-
ted in the Hebrew Prayer Book and is still used in the Synagogue (Hebrew texts in
D. W. Staerk, Altjiidische liturgische Gebete, 1910; cf. S. Singer, ed., Authorised
Daily Prayer Book of the United Congregations of the British Empire, 1935 and
numerous editions).
The Eighteen Benedictions have been preserved in the form which the Pharisees
gave them after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (cf. petition 14), but they are con-
siderably older, and W. Forster holds that they give “‘a picture of the things that
were precious to all Jews in Jesus’ day” (Palestinian Judaism in New Testament
Times, 1964, 156). The following translation is that given by R. A. Stewart, op. cit.,
183-86, based on the text given by O. Holtzmann in G. Beer and O. Holtzmann,
eds, Die Mischna, Text, Ubersetzung und Erklarung, 1912, which he holds to be
more accurate than that of Staerk.
O Lord, open thou my lips, and my mouth shall show forth thy praise (Ps. 51:17).
1. Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the God of our fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the great, mighty and
revered God, the Most High God, owner of heaven and earth, our Shield
and the Shield of our fathers, our confidence from generation to generation.
Blessed art thou, O Lord, the Shield of Abraham.
2. Thou art mighty, bringing low the proud, strong, and the judge of the
ruthless, living for evermore and raising the dead; making the wind to
return and the dew to fall; nourishing the living and making alive the dead;
bringing forth salvation for us in the blinking of an eyelid. Blessed art thou
O Lord, who makest alive the dead.
3. Holy art thou, and revered is thy name. There is none other God beside thee.
Blessed art thou, O Lord, the holy God.
4. Favour us, O our Father, with knowledge of thee, and with understanding
and sagacity from thy Torah. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who favourest with
knowledge.
5. Bring us back, O Lord, unto thee, and may we return. Renew our days as
aforetime. Blessed art thou, who takest delight in repentance.
6. Pardon us, our Father, for we have sinned against thee. Wipe out and
remove our transgressions from before thine eyes, for great are thy mercies.
Blessed art thou, O Lord, who aboundest in forgiving.
7. Look on our afflictions and defend our cause, and redeem us for thy
Name’s sake. Blessed art thou, O Lord, the Redeemer of Israel.
8. Heal us, O Lord our God, from the affliction of our hearts and remove
sorrow and sighing from us, and bring healing for our stripes. Blessed art
thou, the healer of the sick of thy people Israel.
865
PRAYER
10.
11.
b.
13.
14.
1.
16,
17.
18.
The first three petitions give praise to Israel’s God. The reference to the — resur-
rection in the second petition indicates Pharisaic influence. The prayers indicate
a strong desire to know God and to do his will. There is repeated petition for
redemption which, however, is conceived in terms of an alteration of the present
world-situation in restoring the fortunes of Israel and the restoration of Jerusalem
866
Bless this year to us for good, O Lord our God, in every kind of its increase,
and bring speedily near the year of the fulfilment of our redemption.- Grant
the dew and the rain on the face of the earth, and make full the world from
the storehouse of thy goodness. Grant blessing on the works of our hands.
Blessed art thou, O Lord, who blessest the years.
Blow on a great trumpet for our liberty, and raise a standard for the
gathering together of our exiles. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who gatherest
together the banished ones of thy people Israel.
Restore our judges as at the first, and our counsellors as in the beginning,
and mayest thou alone reign over us. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who lovest
judgment.
For apostates let there be no hope, and the kingship of presumption
mayest thou speedily destroy in our days. May Christians and heretics perish
in a moment, may they be blotted out from the book of the living, and not
be written down with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, that humblest
the proud.
On righteous proselytes may thy compassions be moved, and grant us a
good reward with them that do thy will. Blessed art thou, O Lord, a
confidence for the righteous.
Have compassion, O Lord our God, in thine abounding compassion on
Israel thy’ people, and on Jerusalem, and on Zion the tabernacle of thy
glory, on thy Holy Place and on thy Temple, and on thy kingdom of the
House of David. Blessed art thou, O Lord, the builder of Jerusalem.
{Note: The wording offers clear presumption of a date prior to A.D. 70.
The form used today is expressed a little differently. ]
Hearken, O Lord our God, to the voice of our prayer, and have compassion
on us, for thou art a gracious and compassionate God. Blessed art thou,
O Lord, who hearest prayer.
Be pleased, O Lord our God, to dwell in Zion, and thy servants will serve
thee in Jerusalem. Blessed art thou, O Lord, whom we will serve in fear.
We give thee thanks. Thou art the Lord our God and the God of our fathers.
For all good things, for grace and compassion which thou has dealt out unto
us, and unto our fathers before us — and if we say, Our foot has slipped, the
Lord will sustain us — blessed be thou, O Lord, to thee be the praise.
Give thy peace to Israel thy people, and unto thy city and thy possession.
Bless us, each and every one. Blessed be thou, O Lord, who makest peace.
PRAYER
(14th, 16th, 18th). But there is no mention of a new covenant, a new heart, a new
heaven and earth or the last judgment. This suggests that the ideas which had been
developed in Judaism through the Hasidic movement are lacking (cf. W. Forster,
op. cit., 157). There is no prayer for the repentance of the apostates or mention of
the Gentiles turning to the God of Israel. The twelfth petition which appears to
have been inserted after A.D. 70 shows the deep-rooted hostility to Christians (or
Nazarenes, as the text calls them). However, this reference was subsequently
removed. Forster notes a similar tendency in the Psalms of Solomon, a Pharisaic
work consisting of eighteen psalms dated in the post Maccabean period c. 70-40
B.c. (ibid.). Here the pious and the ungodly have both sinned. But the former
has done so without intent; he cleaves to God, accepts his discipline and remains
righteous; whereas the latter does not (see especially Pss.Sol. 9:6 f.; 12:6; 16:5-13;
17:21-42; cf. ibid., 157-61; H. Braun, “Vom Erbarmen Gottes iiber den Gerechten.
Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos’”’, ZNW 43, 1950-51, 1-50). The Eighteen
Benedictions clearly regard God as the sole redeemer. He alone pardons and re-
moves transgression in his mercy (6th petition, cf. 8th, 15th), but alongside of
this there is the same emphasis on the righteous that appears in Pss.Sol. (12th,
13th) and the implication that the righteous who do God’s will deserve to be
rewarded (13th). On rabbinic instructions regarding the use of the Shema and the
Eighteen Benedictions see the Mishnah and Talmud Tractates Berakoth.
C. Brown
NT In the NT proseuchomai occurs 85 times and proseuché 37 times, both being
particularly frequent in Acts but entirely absent from the Gospel of Jn. and the
Johannine Epistles. The simple vb. euchomai is found only 6 times in the NT
(Acts 26:29; 27:29; Rom. 9:3; 2 Cor. 13:7, 9; Jas. 5:16; 3 Jn. 2), euché only 3
times (Acts 18:18; 21:23; Jas. 5:15).
1. The nature and scope of prayer. (a) In the NT prayer is in all respects as it
had developed in the OT. It is modelled, however, upon the praying of Jesus, to
which there are repeated references (cf. 2 below), and which in its turn draws upon
OT prayers and ideas. NT prayer is addressed to God or to Jesus, now called
— Lord (Kyrios), those passages containing the vb. — proskyneo, to worship, being
particularly significant in this connection. But proseuchesthai can also relate to
Jesus (e.g. Rev. 5:8; Acts 9:34 f.; similarly in Acts 9:11, where attention is being
drawn to the entirely new factor in Paul’s situation). In this way the early church
bears witness to the fact that it regards Jesus Christ as its Lord and its living head,
who, having conquered death, is alive for evermore (— Resurrection). Consequently
one can enter into living, personal contact with him, talking with him just as one did
when he was on earth (cf. Acts 9:10-16; 2 Cor. 12:8 f.). It follows that genuine
prayer is not monologue but dialogue, in which the person praying is often silent
in order to listen to Jesus’ word and command. As in the OT, therefore, prayer is
something very personal and specific, a genuine conversation with God or Jesus
Christ. And since the NT believer knows God as his Father, with even greater
clarity than anything his OT counterpart could have enjoyed, his praying proceeds
from a childlike trust, as expressed in the typical NT form of address ‘‘Father’’,
which Jesus taught his disciples to use (Matt. 6:6-9; Lk. 11:2; Eph. 3:14 f.; also
abba’, the Aramaic word for Father, Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). It is precisely at this
867
PRAYER
point that NT prayer contrasts most sharply with that of Rabbinic Judaism. (On
the significance of these passages and the contrast with Judaism — Father, arts.
abba and pater.)
(b) The suppliant’s assurance that his prayers are heard (— aited) is even stronger
in the NT than in the OT, being grounded in an experience of God’s fatherly love
in Jesus Christ. Jesus explicitly strengthens this assurance, which comes from faith,
by promising that the prayer will be heard (e.g. Mk. 11:24: “‘Believe that you have
already received it’). Experiences to the contrary, i.e. that God appears not to
answer prayers, must not tempt us to doubt his fatherly love or the power of prayer
(cf. Jesus in Gethsemane, Matt. 26:36-46 par. Mk. 14:32-42, Lk. 22:40-46,
where Jesus’ passion is the Father’s will).
(c) True prayer has great power. It expresses that —> faith whereby the sinner is
justified (Lk. 18:10, 14). It is answered with the gift of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 11:13).
It clarifies the way ahead (Mk. 1:35—39). It enables the suppliant to receive and put
on the whole armour of God (cf. Eph. 6:18). Paul encouraged the believer to desire
spiritual — gifts (1 Cor. 14:1). It is necessary to surround all activities with prayer,
especially for the perseverance of the saints and for bold and faithful witness (Eph.
6:17-20). True prayer overcomes anxieties (Phil. 4:6). But at the same time it is
a fight with the powers of evil and of darkness (Rom. 15:30; Col. 4:12; cf. Matt.
6:13).
On the other hand, the NT, like the OT, warns of hindrances which can make
prayer ineffectual: licentiousness and lovelessness (1 Pet. 3:7; Jas. 4:3); unbelief
and doubt (Jas. 1:5-7); and an unforgiving spirit (Matt. 5:23 f.; Mk. 11:25).
(d) NT prayer can be about anything, from the smallest matter to the greatest,
from the affairs of today to those of eternity. The best example of this is the Lord’s
Prayer (Matt. 6:9 ff. and Lk. 11:2 ff.). Here the prayer for daily bread (—~ Bread,
art. epiousios), which includes all our other daily needs, is flanked on the one side
by prayer for the coming of God’s — kingdom and for his will to be done on earth,
and on the other by prayer for the forgiveness of sin, for preservation in — temp-
tation and for deliverance from all — evil (also from the evil one; — ponéros, NT
2 (b)). It is, however, not without significance that the prayers which refer to God,
his will, his kingdom and his — name stand first (— Holy, art. hagios). In Matt.
6 as in Lk. 11 the Lord’s Prayer is embedded in longer discourses concerning true
prayer (Matt. 6:5-15; Lk. 11:1-13); 1t must be marked by simplicity, concentra-
tion, discipline, patient confidence —- and obedience. (On the Lord’s Prayer see
especially J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, SBT Second Series 6, 1967; J. Lowe,
The Lord’s Prayer, 1962; and E. Lohmeyer, The Lord’s Prayer, 1965.)
(e) In addition to supplication, there are, as in the OT, the following types of
prayer: intercession, the efficacy of which is emphasized especially by Paul and
James (Rom. 15:30; 1 Thess. 5:25; 2 Thess. 3:1; Jas. 5:14-18) and which ought to
embrace all men, even enemies (Matt. 5:44); the prayer of praise and thanksgiving
(— Thank, arts. aineo and eucharisted) and adoration, which is addressed exclu-
sively to God himself, quite apart from his gifts whether earthly or spiritual (cf.
especially Rev. 4:8-11; 5:8-14; 7:9-17; 11:15-18; 15:2 ff.; 16:5 ff.; 19:1-8;
22:3, 9). The NT frequently insists that prayer should be constant (e.g. its use of
ektenos, eagerly, fervently, constantly Acts 12:5; 1 Pet. 1:22; —» Patience, art.
kartered). This amounts to saying that the Christian ought always to live in the
868
PRAYER
presence of his Lord and in converse with him, and constantly to be looking to him
(Col. 4:2 and passim).
The posture in prayer was either kneeling (Acts 21:5; Eph. 3:14), in which case
the forehead might touch the ground (Matt. 26:39), or standing (Mk. 11:15; Lk.
18:11, 13), sometimes with uplifted hands (1 Tim. 2:8).
Communal prayer seems to have been customary in the early church, both in
public worship (1 Cor. 11:4 f.; 14:13-16:26) and in smaller gatherings (Matt.
18:19, where Jesus attaches a special promise to communal prayer; Acts 2:46 f.;
12:12), though private prayer is the fountain-head of prayer in general (Matt. 6:6;
Jesus frequently prayed alone: Matt. 14:23; Mk. 1:35; Lk. 5:16; 6:12; 9:18).
H. Schonweiss
2. The form of the Lord’s Prayer. Set prayers certainly existed, but even here
there was no rigidity, as can be seen from the fact that the Lord’s Prayer is handed
down in two variant forms (Matt. 6:9-13; Lk. 11:2 ff.; on this see J. Jeremias, op.
cit., 87-94).
The RSV text reads:
Matt. 6:9-13 Lk. 11:2 ff.
Our Father who art in heaven, Father,
Hallowed be thy name. hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread; Give us each day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debts, and forgive us our sins, for we
As we also have forgiven our ourselves forgive everyone who is
debtors; indebted to us;
And lead us not into temptation, and lead us not into temptation.
But deliver us from evil.
Certain manuscripts add to the text of Matt. various additions such as: “‘For
thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen” (RSV mg.). But
these are all relatively late and not original. They do not appear in the early and
important representatives of the Alexandrian, Western and pre-Caesarean types
of text or the early commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer by Tertullian, Origen and
Cyprian. The ascription in its threefold form was probably composed to adapt
the prayer for liturgical use in the early church (perhaps on the model of | Chr.
29:11 ff.) (cf. Metzger, 16 f.) The differences of punctuation in the above texts
and the use of capitals reflect, of course, the translators’ understanding, and not the
original manuscripts. But certain differences are at once apparent. Lk. gives
‘‘Father’’ reflecting the Gk. pater and the Aram. ’abba@ which may be construed as
‘“‘Dear Father’, whereas Matt. gives the pious and reverent form of Palestinian
invocation. Whereas Matt. and Lk. agree in giving the first two “‘thou-petitions’’,
Matt. gives a third. In Matt. the third of the “‘we-petitions’” has an antithesis
(““But deliver us from evil’’). |
Jeremias points out that the shorter form of Lk. is completely contained in the
869
PRAYER
longer form of Matt. He, therefore, regards it as probable that the Matthaean
form is an expanded one in view of the general tendency of liturgical texts to
grow by expansion (op. cit., 89 f.). Moreover, no one would have dared to shorten
a sacred text like the Lord’s Prayer and leave out two petitions if they had formed
part of the original tradition. Jeremias also points out that “in Matthew the
stylistic structure is more consistently carried through” (op. cit., 90). This is re-
flected in the way the RSV sets out the text of Matt. in verses, whereas it gives the
text of Lk. in continuous prose. In Matt. there is a parallelism in which three
‘‘thou-petitions’’ are followed by three ‘“‘we-petitions’”’. But in Matt. and Lk. there
is the same basic order which puts God first and man second. This, in fact, reflects
the order of the two great commandments and the Shema (cf. Matt. 22:3440;
Mk. 12:28-34; Lk. 10:25—-28). A further point which Jeremias regards as favouring
the originality of Lk.’s version is its reflection of the word abba, Father, which was
characteristic of Jesus.
Jeremias concludes that Lk.’s form represents that of the Gentile church and
Matt.’s that of the Jewish-Christian church, and that ‘“‘The Gentile-Christian
church has handed down the Lord’s Prayer without change, whereas the Jewish-
Christian church, which lived in a world of rich liturgical tradition and used a
variety of prayer forms, has enriched the Lord’s Prayer liturgically”’ (op. cit., 91).
A similar form to Matt.’s with insignificant variations is given in the Didache
8:2. At the same time Jeremias observes that, ‘““when one attempts to put back the
Lord’s Prayer into Aramaic, Jesus’ mother tongue, the conclusion begins to emerge
that, like the Psalter, it is couched in liturgical language”’ (op. cit., 93; cf. C. C.
Torrey, ““The Translations made from the Original Aramaic Gospels”’’, in Studies
in the History of Religions presented to Crawford Howell Toy, 1912, 309-17; and
The Four Gospels, 1933, 292; E. Littmann, ““Torreys Buch iiber die vier Evangelien’’,
ZNW 34, 1935, 20-34; C. F. Burney, The Poetry of our Lord, 1925, 112 f.; G.
Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I, 1930, 283-365, appendix on “‘Das Vaterunser”’ which
is not in ET; K. G. Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim, WUNT |,
1950, 32 f.). “We should note three features especially: parallelism, the two-beat
rhythm, and the rhyme in lines two and four, which is scarcely accidental’’ (ibid.).
This suggests, however, that it is not only Matt.’s version which had an original
liturgical form, but that Lk.’s had one as well.
A position diametrically opposed to that of Jeremias is argued by M. D. Goulder
in Midrash and Lection in Matthew, 1974, 296-301, which modifies his earlier
article “The Composition of the Lord’s Prayer’, JTS New Series 14, 1963, 32-45.
He instances cases of liturgical shortening from church history and claims that Lk.
often shortens the Marcan teaching that he takes over and is regularly shorter
than Matt. in Q-passages. Goulder claims that ‘“‘what we have in Matthew is a
prayer composed by the evangelist from the traditions of prayers of Jesus in Mark
and the teaching on prayer in Mark, amplified from the Exodus context of the
Sermon, and couched in Matthaean language. What we have in Luke is a version
pruned of the rounded Matthaean periods and slightly obvious antitheses, and
couched in Lucan language” (op. cit., 298).
Clearly Goulder is right in seeing parallels with Mk. There is an obvious reitera-
tion of the petition for forgiveriess. The only teaching on prayer in Mk. follows
the saying about the mountain being cast into the sea: “Therefore I tell you,
870
PRAYER
whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you receive it, and you will. And whenever
you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your
Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mk. 11:25 f.).
The saying about the mountain occurs in Matt. 21:21 in connection, as it is in
Mk., with the withering of the fig tree (— Fruit, art. syké). In both cases it illustrates
what God can do in response to — faith, and is occasioned by what happened to
the fig tree. But the saying about forgiveness is omitted by Matt., evidently because
it was already contained in the Lord’s Prayer.
Goulder suggests parallels with Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane inferring that Mk.’s
account supplied the source materials for the address of God as abba, Father
(Mk. 14:36; cf. Matt. 26:39; Lk. 22:42), a term which had passed into the Pauline
churches and was used ecstatically in prayer (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15). Matt. renders
this as pater mou, my Father, and Lk. simply as pater, Father, which is the way that
he normally records Jesus’ address to God (cf. Lk. 15:12; 18:21; 23:34, 46). This,
Goulder suggests, explains why God is addressed simply as “Father” in Lk.’s
version of the Lord’s Prayer (op. cit., 299). A further parallel with the Lord’s
Prayer is the Gethsemane prayer: “‘yet not what I will, but what thou wilt” (Mk.
14:36; cf. Matt. 26:39; Lk. 22:42). Moreover, Jesus not only prayed for himself,
but he also told the disciples to pray that they enter not into — temptation (Mk.
14:38; cf. Matt. 26:41; Lk. 22:46).
In Matt.’s version the Lord’s Prayer consists of two halves each consisting of
three petitions: three for the honour of God and three for our needs. It is widely
held that Matt. sees the prayer in the context of a new Sinai, since he records it
in the Sermon on the Mount with Jesus as the new lawgiver. Each half of the Lord’s
Prayer opens with a petition recalling Exod. The first petition is a Christian
restatement of the Third Commandment (Matt. 6:9 par. Lk. 11:2; cf. Exod. 20:7;
Deut. 5:11). It states positively what the Third Commandment states negatively.
But in so doing it not only precludes taking the name of God in vain; it also secures
what is implied in the First and Second Commandments concerning other gods and
graven images (Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 5:7-10). The fourth petition also recalls the
coming to Sinai in God’s provision of the manna (Matt. 6:11; Lk. 11:3; cf. Exod.
16:15; Num. 11:4-9; Deut. 8:3; Ps. 78:24 f.). On the significance of “daily” —
Bread, art. epiousios. It may well imply provision for one’s immediate needs, as
in the exodus wanderings, and also provision in the coming kingdom symbolized
by the messianic banquet. But apart from the first and fourth petitions, it may well
be that the remaining petitions are a restatement of the Ten Commandments and the
exodus wilderness themes. The petitions for the coming of God’s kingdom and for
the doing of God’s will extend and supersede what the Fourth Commandment
says about the — sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15)-— which, in a sense,
anticipates the kingdom as the reign of God — and the remaining Commandments
specifically directed at personal relationships (honouring one’s parents, killing,
adultery, stealing, bearing false witness and coveting, Exod. 20:12-17; Deut.
5:16-21). Similarly the fifth and sixth petitions for forgiveness and avoidance of
temptation have retrospective and prospective bearing on the whole range of the
Ten Commandments. These are themes which are interwoven with the history of
Israel in general and the wilderness wanderings in particular. Thus Deut. 8:2 f.
declares: ‘And you shall remember all the way which the LorD your God has led
87]
PRAYER
you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to
know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.
And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did
not know, nor did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man
does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out
of the mouth of the Lorp”’ (cf. Matt. 4:4; Lk. 4:4). What the Lord’s Prayer does
is to apply the themes by which ancient Israel lived to the life of the new Israel.
It is thus a fulfilment of the Ten Commandments and the exodus themes (cf. Matt.
5:17 f.). At the same time it transforms the themes from external commandments
into petitions with which the one who prays personally identifies himself. And thus
the law may be said to be written in his heart (cf. Jer. 31:33) as in the new covenant.
Goulder’s thesis is that ““Matthew has thus composed a prayer that may properly
be called the Lord’s Prayer, since the greater part of it is his own prayers, and
teaching on prayer” (op. cit., 300). But if Matt. composed it, how did substantially
the same prayer find its way into Lk.? Few scholars would subscribe to the view
that Lk. was dependent on Matt., and in any case Goulder seems to invoke the Q-
hypothesis of a source common to Matt. and Lk. at certain points. If the Lord’s
Prayer was in Q (and thus presumably ascribed to Jesus by a historically earlier
source), it could not have been the free composition of Matt. (although this would
not in itself preclude the possibility of its being the earlier composition of someone
else). Clearly Goulder has shown that the argument about the length of the res-
pective versions is in itself inconclusive. Jeremias admits that ‘“‘we must be cautious
with our conclusions. The possibility remains that Jesus himself spoke the ‘Our
Father’ on different occasions in a slightly differing form, a shorter one and a
longer one’’ (op. cit., 91). This point is, of course, supported by the fact that Matt.
and Lk. present the prayer in quite different contexts (Matt. in the Sermon on the
Mount; and Lk. as Jesus’ response to the disciples’ request to be taught to pray
after they had seen him praying).
The most positive aspect of Goulder’s treatment is the way in which he draws
attention to the way in which phrases and similar thoughts in the Lord’s Prayer
are to be found elsewhere and to the way in which the Lord’s Prayer takes up themes
associated with Sinai and the wilderness wanderings. In the above discussion we
have gone further than Goulder in suggesting that it is not only the first and fourth
petitions which recall this, but that the entire prayer is a restatement of the Ten
Commandments in the form of a prayer and that the affinities with the wilderness
wanderings are by no means confined to the petition for daily bread. Goulder
allows that the various elements of the prayer are to be found elsewhere in the
words of Jesus. What this suggests 1s not that the prayer was the work of the
creative imagination of Matt. (which entails the difficulties already noted), but
that the Lord’s Prayer is not to be thought of in isolation from the practice and
teachings that Jesus lived and died by. Not only is it possible to conceive (as Jere-
mias allows) of two forms of the prayer given by Jesus on separate occasions. It is
also possible to conceive of how different themes found in the prayer recur in
different situations. Thus the petition regarding temptation was not only relevant
to the disciples in Gethsemane; it was also the guiding principle in Jesus’ own wilder-
ness temptation where it coincides with the thought of the provision of bread, as
in the wilderness wanderings. In the way in which the Lord’s Prayer takes up the
872
PRAYER
Ten Commandments and the life of the pilgrim people of God which Jesus also
took up and taught, the prayer is integral to the life and teaching of Jesus.
C. Brown
3. Prayer in individual NT writers. (a) The frequent use of proseuchomai in the
Lucan writings is striking. For Luke prayer is a basic expression of Christian faith
and life, and Jesus is the very model of how to pray aright (Lk. 11:1). All the im-
portant points in the lives of Jesus, his apostles and the members of his church
are marked by prayer to God; all important decisions are made with prayer (Lk.
3:21 f.; 6:12 f.; 9:18, 28 ff. ; 22:44; 23:34; Acts 1:14, 24 f.; 6:6; 9:11; 10:9; 13:3).
That prayer was experienced as genuine conversation with God is clear from the
fact that those concerned often receive quite definite instructions from God (e.g.
Acts 10:9 ff., 30 ff.; 13:2).
(b) In Jn. the euchomai word-group is entirely absent. In referring to Christ’s
prayers, Jn. uses the ordinary words for speaking and talking, qualifying them
only with the statement that Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven (Jn. 11:14; 17:1).
Moreover, it is noticeable that Jesus almost always speaks to his heavenly Father
in the immediate situation, i.e. in full view of others and without retiring expressly
for prayer (this is especially clear in Jn. 12:27 f.). In this way Jn. indicates Jesus’
continual fellowship with God; in his case praying did not require a special act,
since his whole life was one of prayer. His unique relationship to God is empha-
sized by the fact that he never prays in company with his disciples.
(c) Paul attaches special importance to the fact that true prayer is wrought by
the — Spirit (Rom. 8:15, 26; Gal. 4:6). In both passages apart from Rom. 8:26
where the vb. is proseuchomai, Paul uses kraz6, to — cry, in order to express that
freedom, joy and confidence in prayer which spring from our awareness of being
God’s sons. In other words, such prayer does not originate in any power possessed
by man and can never be considered as a meritorious work. Like faith itself, from
which it stems and with which in fact it is practically identical, it is a gift from above
(cf. Eph. 6:18, praying in the Spirit). To Paul, prayer is ultimately the indwelling,
energizing — Spirit speaking with God himself, who “‘is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17;
cf. Jn. 4:23 f.; Rom. 8:14). Thus prayer is not dependent for its efficacy on human
eloquence or on any particular frame of mind. The apostle emphasizes rather that
assurance of salvation is both evidenced and increased by Spirit-wrought prayer
(Rom. 8:15, 16). A similar idea is expressed elsewhere, when he speaks of his
thanksgiving being offered “through Christ’ (Rom. 1:8; 7:25).
Paul also refers to a kind of Spirit-filled prayer which transcends the limitations
of human speech and understanding: the so-called speaking in tongues or praying
in the Spirit (1 Cor. 14:14-16). But he very definitely considers prayer which is
intelligible to the hearers to have greater value than prayer offered in tongues (1 Cor.
14:19), because only when others can give assent is the —> church edified as a body
(— House, art. — oikos). The fact that Jn. too regards Spirit-wrought prayer as the
new departure in Christian praying, is shown by Jn. 4:23 f. (to worship “‘in spirit
and in truth”; — proskyneo NT 4).
A detailed study of Paul’s prayers has been made by G. P. Wiles in Paul’s
Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the
Letters of St Paul, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 24, 1974.
873
PRAYER
Wiles notes the following prayer passages in the Pauline epistle: (i) Doxology
(using doxazo, glorify) Rom. 1:21, 23; 4:20; 11:36; 15:6, 9; 16:25 ff.; 1 Cor.
6:20; 10:31; 2 Cor. 1:20; 4:15; 9:13; Gal. 1:5, 24; Eph. 3:20f.; Phil. 1:11;
2:11; 4:20; (ii) Praise (using exomologeomai, confess; epainos, praise) Rom. 14:11;
15:9 ff.; Eph. 1:6, 12, 14; Phil. 1:11; 2:11); Gi) Blessing (eulogeomai, bless) Rom.
1:25; 9:5; 1 Cor. 14:16; 2 Cor. 1:3 ff.; 11:31; Eph. 1:3); Gv) Worship (proskyneo,
worship) 1 Cor. 14:25; (v) Hymns, community singing, psalms, etc. (psalmos,
hymn, psalm; psallo, sing; hymnos, hymn, song; ddé, song) 1 Cor. 15, 26; Eph.
5:19; Col. 3:16; (vi) Thanksgiving (eucharistia, thankfulness, gratitude; eucharistos,
thankful; eucharisted, give thanks) Rom. 1:8 ff., 21; 6:17 f.; 7:25; 14:6; 1 Cor.
1:4 ff., 14; 10:30; 11:24; 14:6 f., 18; 15:57; 2 Cor. 2:14; 4:15; 8:16 f.; 9:11 f.;
Eph. 1:15 ff.; 5:4, 20; Phil. 1:3 ff.; 4:6; Col. 1:3 ff.; 2:5, 7; 3:15 ff.; 4:2; 1 Thess.
1:2 ff.; 2:13 ff; 3:9; 5:18; 2 Thess. 1:3 ff.; 2:13; Phim. 4 ff.; (vii) Boasting in
Christ or before God (kKauchaomai, boast, and cognates) Rom. 5:2 f., 11; 15:17 ff;
1 Cor. 1:29 ff.; 2 Cor. 1:12 ff.; 7:4; and frequently in chs. 10-12; Phil. 1:26;
2:16; 3:3; 1 Thess. 2:19; (viii) Petition for self (deomai, ask, request, beg; proseu-
chomai, pray) Rom. 1:10; 7:24; 9:3; 1 Cor. 14:13; 2 Cor. 12:8; 1 Thess. 3:10,
though apart from 2 Cor. 12:8, these passages are problematical; (ix) Intercessory
prayer for others, including blessings and curses (Ayperentynchano, intercede,
Rom. 8:26) Rom. 1:7b; 9 f.; 8:15 f., 23, 26 f., 34; 9:1-3; 10:1; 11:2-5, 12:12c, 14;
15:5f.; 13:30-33; 16:20a, 20b; 1 Cor. 1:3, 8; 2:9-16; 5:3 ff.; 11:10; 15:29; 16:22a,
23; 2 Cor. 1:2, 7, 11, 14; 13:7, 9b, 11b, 14; Gal. 1:3, 8 f.; 4:6; 6:16, 18; Eph. 1:2,
16-23; 3:14-19; 6:18 ff., 23 f.; Phil. 1:2, 4, 9ff., 19 f.; 4:6f., 9b, 23; Col. 1:2b,
3b, 9-14, 29; 2:1-3, 5; 4:2 ff., 12, 18b, 18c; 1 Thess. 1:1b, 2 f.; 3:10-13; 5:17 f.,
23, 24b, 25, 28; 2 Thess. 1:2, 11 f.; 2:16 f.; 3:1-3, 5, 16, 18; Phlm. 3, 4, 6; (x)
’ General prayer — type not specified (proseuchomai, pray; laleé té thed, speak to
God) 1 Cor. 11:4 f., 13; 14:14 f., 28; (epikaled, call upon) Rom. 10:12 ff.; 1 Cor.
eZ: 2 Con 1323.
Intercessory prayer is referred to in the following passages: Rom. 1:7b, 9 f.;
8:15 f., 23, 26 f., 34; 9:3; 10:1; 11:2-5; 12:12c, 14; 15:5 f., 13, 30 ff., 33; 16:20;
1] Cor. 1:3, 8 f.; 2:9-16; 5:3 ff.; 11:10; 15:29; 16:22 f.; 2 Cor. 1:2, 7, 11; 9:14;
13:7, 9, 11, 14; Gal. 1:3, 8 f.; 4:6; 6:16, 18; Phil. 1:2, 4, 9ff., 19 f.; 4:6f., 9, 19;
1 Thess. 1:1 ff.; 3:10-13; 5:17 f., 23; 5:24f., 28; Phlm. 3, 4, 6, 22, 25; Eph. 1:2,
16-23; 3:14-19; 6:18 ff.; 6:23 f.; Col. 1:2 f., 9-14; 1:29-2:3; 2:5; 4:2 ff, 12, 18;
2 Thess. 1:2, 11 f.; 2:16 f.; 3:1-3, 5, 16, 18. In addition to this, Wiles draws atten-
tion to the liturgically oriented patterns of the endings of the Pauline epistles. (For
full classified tables of the various kinds of prayer, see op. cit., 297-302.)
Whilst recognizing that no hard and fast line can be drawn between thanks-
givings, intercessions and representative corporate supplications, Wiles neverthe-
less insists that intercessory prayer forms a significant feature of Paul’s writings
in which the one who prays “‘is concerned as mediator and intercessor before God,
principally for the needs of others”’ (op. cit., 293). An important feature here is the
wish-prayer which may be described as “‘the expression of a desire that God take
action regarding the person(s) mentioned in the wish” (op. cit., 22). Thus in Rom.
15:13 Paul writes: ““May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing,
so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope’’ (cf. also Rom.
15:5 f.; 1 Thess. 3:11 ff.; 5:23 f.; 2 Thess. 2:16 f.; 3:5, 16; 2 Tim. 16, 18; 2:25;
874
PRAYER
4:16; Heb. 13:20 f.; for a full list see op. cit., 299 f.; for discussion of their form,
background and function, op. cit., 22-107). Also significant are the prayer reports,
where at the beginning of most of his letters Paul assures his readers ‘“‘not only of
his continual thanksgivings for them, but also of his constant intercessions on their
behalf, and he indicates briefly some of the contents of his prayers’’ (op. cit., 156).
Thus in Phim. 4 ff. he writes: “I thank my God always when I remember you in my
prayers, ... and I pray that the sharing of your faith may promote the kriowledge
of all the good that is ours in Christ” (cf. Rom. 1:9 f.; Phil. 1:4, 9 ff; 1 Thess.
1:2 f.; 3:10; 2 Cor. 1:7; Eph. 1:16-23; Cor. 1:3, 9-14; 2 Thess. 1:1 ff.; for dis-
cussion, op. cit., 156-258). Such prayer reports may also occur in the body of
letters (Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 5:3; 2 Cor. 9:14; 13:7, 9; Col. 1:29-2:3, 5; 4:12). As
far as the wish-prayers and prayer reports are concerned each in its own way
epitomizes ‘‘the dominant message of the letter’, underlines its central concerns,
and stands at a strategic location in the letter (op. cit., 293).
While immediate concerns shape the prayers, they are “grounded in and
directed by the gospel of Christ’ (op. cit., 294). At the same time they are infused
by warm personal feeling and “unbounded expectation”. Paul’s eschatological
perspectives add increased urgency. “In his prayers he was always conscious of
living ‘before God’, already in the last days with parousia and judgment close
ahead, dominated by the belief that his readers and he would stand shortly at the
judgment seat of Christ’ (ibid.). But the prayers also indicate Paul’s concern for
mutual intercession, reconciliation and unity throughout the church. “Prayer
buttressed all his mission work — in advance of his visits, during them, and after
he had departed. All his plans were conceived under the constant sense of the
guidance and will of God” (op. cit., 296). Sometimes the prayers are characterized
by a tension between confident thanksgiving and anxious supplication, but invari-
ably they lead back to thanksgiving in view of mercies already given.
(d) Jas. 5:13 ff. merits special mention. On the one hand, it is laid down that a
Christian’s whole life, the good times as well as the bad, should be lived in an
atmosphere of prayer, 1.e. that the Christian should lay before God everything
that happens to him, so that each new experience is suffused with prayer. On the
other hand, in cases of sickness, prayer is to be accompanied by the laying on of
hands, anointing and confession of sins. Here the laying on of — hands (implicit
in the phrase “‘let them pray over him’’) and the > anointing with — oil, being
outward actions, are considered to be tangible, readily intelligible expressions of
prayer for the benefit of the sick individual, while confession of sins is made in
order to remove any hindrances to prayer (— Heal).
4. Lastly, in one passage only (Acts 16:13, 16) proseuché means a place of prayer.
H. Schénweiss, C. Brown
ane parr anes mpookvvéw (proskyned), worship, do obeisance to,
| 7 POOKULVEM | ;
prostrate oneself, do reverence to; mpookvvyTtHs (pros-
kynétés), a worshipper.
cL The basic meaning of proskyneod, in the opinion of most scholars, is to kiss.
The prefix indicates a connection with cultic practices going back beyond Gk.
875
PRAYER
history. On Egyptian reliefs worshippers are represented with outstretched hand
throwing a kiss to (pros-) the deity. Among the Greeks the vb. is a technical term
for the adoration of the gods, meaning to fall down, prostrate oneself, adore on
one’s knees. Probably it came to have this meaning because in order to kiss the
earth (i.e. the earth deity) or the image of a god, one had to cast oneself on the
ground. Later proskyned was also used in connection with the deification of rulers
and the Roman emperor cult. In addition to the external act of prostrating oneself
in worship, proskynedé can denote the corresponding inward attitude of reverence
and humility.
OT In the overwhelming majority of cases in the LXX proskyneo translates the Heb.
Sahdah in the hithpael, meaning to bow down, and is used both of bowing down
before men and of worship: Gen. 18:2; 19:1; 22:5; 23:7, 12; 24:16, 48, 52;
27:29; 33:3, 6 f., 9 f.; 42:6; 43:28; 47:31; 48:12; 49:8; Exod. 4:31; 11:8; 12:27;
18:7; 20:5; 23:24; 24:1; 32:8; 33:10; 34:8, 14; Lev. 26:1; Num. 22:31; 25:2;
Deut. 4:19; 5:9; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 26:10; 29:25(26); 30:17; Jos. 23:7, 16;
Jdg. 2:12, 17, 19; 7:15; Ruth 2:10; 1 Sam. 1:3, 19; 2:36; 15:25, 30 f.; 20:41;
24:9; 25:23, 41; 28:14; 2 Sam. 1:2; 9:6, 8; 12:20; 14:4, 22, 33; 15:5, 32; 16:4;
18:21, 28; 24:20; 1 Ki. 1:16, 23, 31, 47, 53; 9:6, 9; 16:31; 22:54; 2 Ki. 2:15; 4:37;
5:18; 17:16, 35 f.; 18:22; 19:37; 21:3, 21; 1 Chr. 16:29; 21:21; 29:20; 2 Chr. 7:3,
19, 22; 20:18; 24:17; 25:14; 29:28 ff.; 32:12; 33:3; Ezr. 9:47; Neh. 8:6; 9:3, 6;
Job 1:20; Pss.5:7; 22(21):27, 29; 29(28):3; 45(44):12; 66(65):4; 72(71):11;
81(80):9; 86(85):9; 95(94):6; 96(95):9; 99(98):5, 9; 106(105):19; 132(131):7;
138(137):2; Mic. 5:13; Zeph. 1:5; 2:11; Zech. 14:16; Isa. 2:8, 20; 27:13; 37:38;
44:15, 17; 45:14; 46:6; 49:7, 23; 66:23; Jer. 1:16; 8:2; 13:10; 16:11; 22:9; 25:6;
26(33):2; Ezek. 8:16; 46:2 f., 9. In the Aram. portion of Dan. it translates s°gid,
pay homage to (Dan. 2:46; 3:5 ff., 10 ff., 14, 18, 28[95]; cf. also Isa. 44:15, 17, 19).
In Dan. 6:27(26) it translates za’, tremble. It is used for kara‘, kneel down, in
Est. 3:2, 5 in conjunction with sahah; for ndsaq, kiss, in 1 Ki. 19:18; and ‘abad,
serve, in Ps. 97(96):7. It occurs without Heb. equivalent in the apocryphal books
and occasionally in canonical writings: Deut. 6:13; 10:20; 32:43; Jdg. 2:2; 6:19;
1 Ka. 2:13; Tob. 5:13; Jud. 5:8; 6:18; 8:18; 10:8, 23; 13:17; 14:7; 16:18; Est.
4:17; 8:13; Ep.Jer. 5 f.; Dan. 6:28(27); Bel 3, 23; 1 Macc. 4:55; 4 Macc. 5:12. The
noun proskynésis, worship, which is absent from the NT occurs only in the apo-
crypha (Sir. 50:21; 3 Macc. 3:7).
In the LXX proskyneo translates histah*wadh and (almost exclusively in Dan.)
s°gid, both with the basic meaning to bend down, stoop, bow. Although in profane
Gk. proskyneo is generally used trans., it hardly ever takes an acc. in the LXX,
being followed instead by a prepositional phrase as a translation of 1°: epi. .., to
the earth (e.g. Gen. 18:2); enantion..., before the people (e.g. Gen. 23:12 and
passim); endpion. .., before God (Ps. 22:27); pros..., towards thy holy temple
(Ps. 5:7); alternatively there may be a dat. construction (e.g. Gen. 24:26). This
Hebraism marks off the adoration of Yahweh from heathen worship, in which the
the worshipper has no sense of having to keep his distance from the deity. The
God of Israel is worshipped without — images and therefore is not within the grasp
of the worshipper. proskyneo retains its physical sense of bending, however, except
that this is understood as bowing to the will of the exalted One (cf. Exod. 12:27 f.).
876
PRAYER
As folding or crossing the hands and arms denotes the suppliant’s mental concen-
tration, and as the lifting up of outstretched hands expresses the fact that he is
making a request, in the same way the physical act of bending indicates his readi-
ness to bow to the will of the One whom he approaches in this manner. When
proskyneo refers to men, it always indicates reverence shown to a person superior
in position or power (cf. 2 Sam. 18:21). However, the fact that certain limits were
always observed in this matter 1s shown by Est. 3:2, 5, where a Jew, on peril of his
life, refuses to prostrate himself before a heathen prince.
NT 1. Inthe NT the verb occurs 59 times, of which 24 are in Rev., 11 in the Gospels
of Jn. and 9 in Matt. (‘‘the Gospel of the King’’), and takes either acc. or dat.
without any difference of meaning. The OT sense is taken up and further developed,
except that now it denotes exclusively worship addressed (or which should be
addressed) to God or to Jesus Christ (even in Matt. 18:26 the king is a symbolic
figure for God). In Acts 10:25 f.; Rev. 19:10; 22:8 f. it is expressly stated that
worship is to be offered to God alone, not to an apostle (even such a prominent
apostle as Peter!), or even to an angelic being. Hence, whenever obeisance is made
before Jesus, the thought is either explicit or implicit that he is king (Matt. 2:2),
Lord (Matt. 8:12), the Son of God (Matt. 14:33), One who can act with divine
omnipotence (e.g. Matt. 14:33; Mk. 5:6; 15:19). For that reason obeisance is
often linked with a request for help in sore need. On the one hand, it intensifies the
request, while, on the other hand, it is a sign of faith in the divine helper and
redeemer, a faith certain of being heard (e.g. Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 15:25). In Jn. 9:38
obeisance is nothing less than the outward reflex action of faith: to believe means
to adore Jesus, to recognize him as Lord, to render him homage as king. Thus
obeisance is especially appropriate before the risen and exalted Lord (Matt. 28:9,
17; Lk. 24:52).
When Satan, reversing the true order of things, requires obeisance from Jesus
(Matt. 4:9; Lk. 4:7), he proves himself by this very act to be God’s great adversary,
who would usurp that which is due to God alone (Matt. 4:10; Lk. 4:8) and so
overthrow all the good purposes and ordinances of God.
2. In this context obeisance is a sign of man’s fundamentally religious nature:
his worship shows who his god 1s, whether it be the true God, or idols, demons,
even Satan himself (cf. Rev. 9:20; 13:4, 8, 12). For man’s relation to God is
expressed principally in worship, and above all in prayer. The call to conversion
can therefore be put in the form: ““Worship God!” i.e. recognize him in all his
power and glory as creator and judge, acknowledge his exclusive sovereign rights
and claim upon you (Rev. 14:7).
3. Where proskyneo is used absolutely it means to share in public worship, to
offer prayers (e.g. Jn. 12:20; Acts 8:27; 24:11), whence, in Rev., proskyneé comes
to denote a particular kind of prayer, namely adoration. Its characteristic features
find expression in the various hymns of adoration found throughout Rev. (4:8—11;
5:8-10, 12-14; 7:10-12; 11:15-18; 12:10 f.; 15:3 f.; 16:5-7; 19:1-7): it is ad-
dressed to God himself (or to Jesus Christ), is concerned with his being (i.e. not
with his gifts as in thanksgiving) and with his works in a world-wide context
(creation, Rev. 4:8—-11; rule, 15:3 f.; 16:5—7; redemption, 5:8-10; consummation,
11:15-18). The hymns make use of ever-varied language and ideas, constantly
877
PRAYER
finding new titles of dignity with which to praise God, and ascribing to him the
most exalted merits and attributes (eternity, omnipotence, honour, wisdom,
holiness, power etc.), in a faltering attempt to confess his name. Frequently this
takes the form of royal acclamation: “Worthy art thou!” (Rev. 4:11; 5:9, 12),
‘Salvation!’ (7:10), interspersed with ejaculatory prayers: (““Hallelujah!”’ “Amen!”
7:12; 19:1, 3, 4; + Amen). Through all these hymns there runs a gloriously uni-
versal strain, and in the face of adoration such as this, human petitions and thanks-
givings merely fade away into silence (cf. Matt. 6:13b).
4. The noun proskynétés, worshipper, occurs only in Jn. 4:23 in the context of
Jesus’ reply to the woman of Samaria: “You worship what you do not know; we
worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming and
now is, when the true worshippers [hoi aléthinoi prosk ynétai| will worship the Father
in spirit and truth [proskynésousin to Patri en pneumati kai alétheia], for such the
Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must
worship in spirit and truth [pneuma ho theos, kai tous proskynountas en pneumati
kai alétheia dei proskynein’’| (Jn. 4:22 ff.). Earlier the woman had declared that her
ancestors had worshipped on “‘this mountain”’, 1.e. Mt. Gerizim (v.20). The allusion
is to the rdle Gerizim played in Samaritan worship. In the Samaritan Pentateuch
Joshua is instructed to build a shrine there (Deut. 27:4). The — Samaritans made
worship on Gerizim part of the Decalogue (cf. however 2 Chr. 6:6). (On Samaritan
thought and practice see J. Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans, 1964.)
Jesus had countered the woman’s assertion of her Samaritan faith by declaring
that “‘the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you
worship the Father” (v. 21).
Jesus’ words are widely taken to be a reference to man’s spirit and the need to
take up a right personal attitude in worship as the continuance of mere custom and
ritual (cf. L. Morris, The Gospel according to John, NLC, 1971, 270f.). Such a
meaning might be supported by the Hellenistic spiritualizing of Philo (Quod Det.
Pot. Ins. 21; Vit.Mos. 2, 108; Spec.Leg. 1, 271; Plant. 108). On the other hand, R. E.
Brown urges that it is the — Spirit of God that is meant here, and that one can
regard “spirit and truth” almost as a hendiadys equivalent to “Spirit of truth”
(The Gospel according to John, Anchor Bible, I, 1966, 180). This would, moreover,
_ fit better the train of thought. For in the context both ‘“‘this mountain” and ‘‘Jeru-
salem” have come to stand for ways in which men have seen fit to worship God-in
ways which were not real worship acceptable to God. But in the coming age men
will worship God in the true way which he himself has chosen and provided, i.e.
in and through himself (cf. also the Johannine teaching on the Spirit, Jn. 1:32 f.;
3:5-8, 34; 6:63; 7:39; 11:33; 13:21; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22; and the
paraclete, Jn. 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; Advocate, art. paraklétos). “In true
worship there is an encounter with God for which God must make man capable by
his grace’’ (R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, I, 1968, 437).
Schnackenburg sees confirmation of this interpretation by similar usage at Qumran:
“Then God will purify all the deeds of man by his truth and he will cleanse the
frame of man. He will eradicate the perverse spirit from within his flesh, and cleanse
him by holy spirit from all his wicked deeds. He will pour out on him the spirit of
truth like purifying water...” (1QS 4:20 f.; cf. 3:6 ff.; 8:5 f.; 9:3-6; 1QH 7:6f.;
12:11 f.; 13:18 f.; 14:25; 16:6 f., 11 f.; 17:26; cf. also R. Schnackenburg, “‘Die
878
PRAYER
Anbetung in Geist und Wahrheit (Joh 4, 23) im Lichte von Qumran-Texten”’, BZ
3, 1959, 88-94; B. Gartner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the
New Testament, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 1, 1965,
44 ff., 119 f.). H. Schonweiss, C. Brown
: ; &pwtaw (erdtad), ask, ask a question, request; émepwmtaw
EpWTa@ ae as ; Ste é
(eperotad), ask; émepa@tyua (eperdtéma), question,
request, appeal.
CL erdtad is found in cl. Gk. from Homer onwards in the sense of ask, ask a
question (in Homer and the best codices of Hdt. as eirdtad). eperdtaéd occurs in
secular Gk. from Hdt., meaning to consult a person or to put a question. Later Gk.
used it technically for putting a formal question at a meeting or in the process of
making a contract. It may even mean to accept the terms of a treaty. In religious
contexts both vbs. can mean to put a question to an oracle or toa god (Hdt., 1, 53,
1 and often; Inscriptions of Magnesia on the Meander, ed. O. Kern, 1900, 17, 12 f.,
26, 36;\S7G III? 1160, 1163, 1165). The noun eperotéma can mean a question put
to another person, to someone in authority for a formal, binding answer (S/G 856,
6, 2nd cent. A.D.). In the papyri (2nd cent. A.D.) the noun and the vb. are used of an
agreement pledged in a contract (Moulton-Milligan, 231 f.)..
y=)
or In the LXX erdtaé is commonly used for Sa’al, ask (e.g. Gen. 24:47, 57; Exod.
3:13; Ps. 35[34]:11; Isa. 41:28). eperdtad is likewise used for the same vb.
(e.g. Gen. 24:23; 26:27; Isa. 19:3). It is most frequent in the historical books
(e.g. Jdg. 1:1; 18:5; 1 Sam. 9:9). It can be used of inquiry of God (e.g. Isa. 65:1,
where some versions have zéted, seek). Both vbs. are used by Josephus in this sense
(Ant. 6, 123, 328; 9, 34; 12, 99; War 1, 540). eperdtéma occurs only in Dan. 4:14
(Theodotion, for §°élah) and Sir. 33(36):3 without equivalent.
NT 1. erdta6d occurs 62 times (especially in Jn., 27 times; cf. Matt., 4 times; Mk. 3
times; Lk. 15 times; Paul, 4 times; Acts, 7 times; 1 and 2 Jn., once each). It
commonly means to ask, inquire. Jesus’ asking and counter-questions were part of
his teaching method, designed to expose the person concerned to the implications
of his own questions or make him reflect on his attitudes (e.g. Matt. 16:13; 19:17;
21:24; Mk. 8:5; Lk. 20:3). But it is also used of the theological questions put by
the disciples (Mk. 4:10; Lk. 9:45; Acts 1:6). Jn. 16:23 implies that in the future
salvation there will be no need to ask Jesus further questions. Asking implies 1m-
perfect knowledge which will be overcome by perfect fellowship with Jesus (cf.
Jn. 16:30; cf. vv. 5, 19). Conversely Jesus does not need to ask questions, for he
knows already what is in man (Jn. 2:25). Apart from Jn. 9:2 and the final dis-
courses, the disciples are never said to ask Jesus. In Jn. asking is characteristic of
the doubting, contentious questions of the Jews (Jn. 1:19, 21, 25; 4:31, 40, 47;
5:12; 8:7; 9:15, 19, 21, 23; 18:19, 21; 19:31, 38). But it may be compared with the
question of the —> Greeks (12:21) and those of Jesus (14:16; 17:9, 15, 20; of the
intercession of Jesus, where Jesus asks things for his disciples of the Father). The
vb. is used of the efficacy of intercession in 1 Jn. 5:16: “‘If any one sees his brother
committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and he [i.e. God] will give him
life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is a sin which is mortal; I do not say
879
PRAYER
that one is to pray for that” (RSV mg.). The use here of the vb. of the praying
believer extends to him a sense of the vb. which in Jn. is only applied to Jesus.
H. Greeven thinks that the use of erdtad in the sense of to pray may be a Semitism
(TDNT II 686 f.). In 2 Jn. 5 it describes the action of the author in begging his
readers to follow love (cf. v. 6). In Acts 1:6 it means to ask (a question). Elsewhere
it generally means to request: of the disciples to Jesus (Matt. 15:23; Lk. 4:38); of
the Jews to Pilate (Jn. 19:31); and in the Lucan writings of invitations (Lk. 7:36;
11:37; Acts 10:48; 18:20). In Lk. 14:18 f. it has the polite, weakened sense of “‘I
pray you”’.
2. eperotao is nearly as common (56 times), and is most frequent in the Gospels.
However, it is most characteristic of Mk. and somewhat less so of Lk. (Mk., 25
times; Lk., 17 times; cf. Matt., 8 times; twice each in Jn., Acts and Paul). The basic
sense is to ask, and here it is synonymous with erdtad, as can be seen from synoptic
parallels and MS variant readings. Instances of its use in the sense of ask are Matt.
16:1; Mk. 9:32; Lk. 2:46; 1 Cor. 14:35 (the latter in Paul’s instructions about the
role of — women in public worship, who are to remain silent and ask their husbands
at home). However, particular nuances of meaning may be detected in certain
passages.
(a) Seeking. The — Pharisees and — Sadducees, traditionally enemies, joined
together as representatives of Judaism (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New
Century Bible, 1972, 257) or of unbelief (J. C. Fenton, Saint Matthew, 1963, 260)
in asking for a sign which might accredit Jesus with popular authority (Matt.
16:1). A similar sense is found at Rom. 10:20, where those who do not ask for
God means those who did not seek him: “Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, ‘I
have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who
did not ask for me.’ ” This adaptation of Isa. 65:1 stands in a catena of citations
{rom the OT which also includes Deut. 32:21. It is followed by the ensuing verse
in Isa.: “But of Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to a dis-
obedient and contrary people’”’ (Rom. 10:21; cf. Isa. 65:2). In the first instance
Isa. 65:1 applies to Yahweh’s readiness to be found by disobedient Israel, even
though Israel did not seek him. Paul adapts it to apply a fortiori to the Gentiles
who in times past did not seek Yahweh but now have found him through faith in
Christ, whereas Israel remains disobedient and estranged. To them Isa. 65:2 still
applies.
(b) Probing. In debate the opponents of Jesus asked probing questions to which
an answer had to be given, and Jesus put counter-questions (Matt: 22:46; Mk.
11:29; Lk. 6:9).
(c) Questioning an authority. Several passages imply that the questioner is
approaching an authority higher than himself. On feast days and sabbaths the
temple Sanhedrin informally received questions and stated their traditions (San-
hedrin 88b), and on such an occasion the youth Jesus put questions to the temple
elders (Lk. 2:46). In a similar sense the disciples dared not question Jesus about a
passion prediction (Mk. 9:32 par. Lk. 9:45), and the Corinthian wives were to
put questions to their husbands at home, not in the assembly for worship (1 Cor.
14:35).
3. The noun eperdtéma is found in the NT only at | Pet. 3:21 in respect of —
baptism: “Baptism, which corresponds to this [i.e. the saving of — Noah in the
880
PRAYER
ark ‘through water’, v. 20], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body
but as an appeal [eperdétéma] to God for a clear conscience” (RSV). E. Best,
following E. G. Selwyn and others, translates this as “‘pledge’’, i.e. a statement of
faith given by the baptizand in answer to a formal question, like the stipulatio or
answer given in a formal contract (E. Best, J Peter, New Century Bible, 1971, 148;
G. C. Richards, ‘‘1 Peter iii 21”, JTS 32, 1931, 77; E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle
of St. Peter, 1947?, 205; Moulton-Milligan, 231 f.; cf. P. Cairo Preiss 1, 16, of the
2nd cent. A.D.). Best prefers to regard it as “‘a pledge made to God to maintain a
clear conscience” (cf. W. J. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits, Analecta
Biblica 23, 1965, 224-28), or ‘‘a pledge made to God proceeding from a clear
conscience”’ (cf. v. 20). Selwyn also suggests that it could mean “‘an enquiry of a
good conscience after God’’, i.e. the convert’s seeking after God as contrasted
with the pagan’s address to his favourite oracle (op. cit., 206). But he does not think
that this sense is specially applicable to baptism. H. Greeven suggests that, in view
of the sense of the vb. meaning to request (cf. Matt. 16:1), the meaning here could
be that baptism is a “‘prayer to God for a good conscience” (TDNT II 688). How-
ever, it might also mean the answer by God to a such a question (cf. SJG 856, 6),
i.e. the granting of a clear —> conscience towards God. For a similar idea, cf. Heb.
10:19-25. G. T. D. Angel
x pose (kroud), knock.
CL & OT kroud is used in secular Gk. from Sophocles onwards and in the LXX
(e.g. Cant. 5:2) for striking something, especially knocking on a door.
NT This is the strict meaning in all 9 NT instances (Matt. 7:7 f. par. Lk. 11:9 f.;
Lk. 12:36; 13:25; Acts 12:13, 16; Rev. 3:20). But apart from the passages in
Acts, the context is in each case metaphorical. The saying ‘Knock and it shall be
opened to you” (Matt. 7:7 par. Lk. 11:9) is probably a proverb since it is found in
Judaism (Pesikta 176a with reference to studying the Mishnah, “If a man knocks,
it will be opened to him’’). But Jer. 29:13 (LXX 36:13) contains Yahweh’s promise:
“You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with your whole heart’ (cf.
the previous verses). According to D. Hill, the knocking does not mean seeking to
enter the — kingdom (cf. 7:13 f.); the situation presupposed is that described in
Lk. 11:5-8 of the friend at midnight (The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 148). Here the
lesson is drawn: “I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything
because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him
whatever he needs”’ (Lk. 11:8). Lk., however, refers this ultimately to the gift of
the Holy — Spirit (Lk. 11:13). G. Bertram, however, relates it to salvation (TDNT
IIT 955 f.). Knocking in Lk. 12:36 and Lk. 13:25 is a detail of the parables of the
returning master and of the excluded postulants. It has a dramatic rather than a
special theological meaning.
Rev. 3:20 pictures the Risen Lord standing at a door knocking, and inviting
those inside to open and receive him. The Lord is addressing the spiritually luke-
warm church at Laodicea (—> Cold, Hot, Lukewarm), and the anticipated offer of
his return means victory and a place in the presence of his Father. This prediction
881
PRAYER
of his confrontation with idle churchmen is both a disturbing warning that apathy
will not go unheeded and a gracious encouragement that the Lord will not allow
his people to remain ineffective, but will rather appeal insistently to establish the
believer in victorious living. Although the picture has been interpreted as an initial
confrontation with the Risen Lord, there is no doubt that an existing Christian
community is being addressed. The background to the image could be the Lord’s
Supper (cf. G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, BNTC, 1966, 58).
However, G. R. Beasley-Murray comments: “The similarity of thought and
language to that which is used in connection with the Lord’s Supper (cf. Jn. 6:35 ff.,
53 ff.) is due less to direct reminiscence of the Supper than to the event to which the
Supper itself looks forward (Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:28 ff.) (The Book of Revelation,
New Century Bible, 1974, 107). G. T. D. Angel
: ; évtvyyavw (entynchand), meet, turn to, approach,
| EVTDYXAV@ | oe ; ee ;
petition, pray, intercede; ovmepevtvyyavm (hyper-
entynchano), plead, intercede.
CL & OT entynchano occurs in cl. Gk. from Soph. and Hdt. onwards and is found
in inscriptions, the papyri, the LX X, Philo and Josephus. It means to approach
or appeal to someone (e.g. Polyb., 4, 30, 1; Dan. 6:13[12] LXX; Josephus, Ant. 16,
170; 12, 18). It is found in the papyri in the sense of appealing to someone against a
third person (cf. Arndt, 269). In view of the fact that petitions may be addressed
to God, it has also the sense of to pray (e.g. BGU 246, 12; Wis. 8:21; 16:28;
Eth.Enoch 9:3). hyperentynchanéd is first found in the NT. Apart from the reading
in Dan., neither vb. occurs in the canonical books of the OT.
NT entynchano is used of Paul’s appeal to the emperor in Acts 25:24. In Rom. 11:2
it denotes — Elijah’s pleading with God against Israel (cf. 1 Ki. 19:10). It is
twice used of Christ’s continuing intercession: ““Who is to condemn? Is it Christ
Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of
God, who indeed intercedes for us [hos kai entynchanei hyper hémon]?’’ (Rom.
8:33); “‘he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him,
since he always lives to make intercession for them [pantote zon eis to entynchanein
hyper auton]’’ (Heb. 7:25). In both cases the intercession is grounded in the death
and resurrection of Christ. However, the two vbs. are also used of the Spirit’s
intercession: “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know
how to pray [lit. ‘“‘what’’; Gk. ti proseuxometha] as we ought, but the Spirit himself
intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words [hyperentynchanei stenagmois
alalétois|. And he who searches the hearts of men knows what is the mind of the
Spirit, because [or “‘that’” RSV mg.; Gk. hoti] the Spirit intercedes for the saints
according to the will of God [kata theon entynchanei hyper hagion| (Rom. 8:26 f.).”’
This verse is commonly taken to refer to Christian prayer generally. ““We take
Paul’s meaning to be that all praying of Christian men, in so far as it is their praying,
remains under the sign of this not-knowing, of real ignorance, weakness and poverty
and that even in their prayers they live only by God’s justification of sinners . . . The
Spirit Himself helps our weakness by interceding for us’’ (C. E. B. Cranfield, The
Epistle to the Romans, 1, ICC, 1975, 422 f.). He dismisses the idea that the stenagmoi
882
PRAYER
refers to glossolalia on the grounds that the latter is usually associated with praise
rather than intercession. He also thinks it unlikely that such utterances could be
interpreted as the Spirit’s own stenagmoi. On the other hand, E. Kasemann has
set out a persuasive case for seeing this whole passage in the context of ecstatic
worship in the Christian community.
As a background to this passage Kasemann sees Paul’s doctrine of the — Spirit
as teaching designed to counter the excess of charismatic enthusiasm in the early
church (‘‘The Cry for Liberty in the Worship of the Church’’, in Perspectives on
Paul, 1971, 122-37; see especially 123 f.). Paul developed a positive doctrine of the
Spirit which he related to the church and to Christ. He was well aware of a possible
clash between “‘in the Spirit” and “in Christ” and established three safeguards:
‘‘(1) He so interpreted the spirit as the power of the risen Christ that it had to be
proved daily in the individual Christian’s life as the power of the nova oboedientia.
(2) Starting from the identity of the risen and the crucified Christ, he allowed the
Spirit to be the power of standing fast in temptations and suffering. (3) Like the
Jewish Christians, he understood the spirit as an ‘earnest’ and hence placed
pneumatology as well as Christology and anthropology under the eschatological
proviso” (op. cit., 124; cf. Rom. 8:1-11 and chs. 12-16). Thus Paul opposed the
“realized eschatology” of the Hellenists, who were proud of their possession
of the Spirit as the sign of present power, with the doctrine of the future redemp-
tion of which the Spirit is the present pledge: “We know that the whole creation
has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we
ourselves, who have the first fruits [aparchén] of the Spirit, groan inwardly [en
heautois stenazomen| as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies
[hyiothesian apekdechomenoi, tén apolytrosin tou somatos hémén|” (Rom. 8:22 f.).
Kasemann claims that it is not simply that we do not know how to pray but
what we should pray, as the Gk. indicates. “‘Only the spirit knows and comprehends
God’s will. It must therefore, like the Paraclete of the Fourth Gospel, support omr
weakness. It does this by offering vicarious intercession for the saints’ (op. cit.,
128; — Advocate; cf. also 1 Cor. 2:11 ff.). Since prayer is never wordless in Paul,
K&asemann takes the groans or sighs referred to here as ecstatic acclamations and
cries of prayer which accompanied the acclamatory cry of “Abba! Father!”’
(op. cit., 130; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). He claims the thought of “‘praying in the
spirit’? is presupposed in the Qumran hymns and is elsewhere attested in the NT
(1 Cor. 14:13 ff.; Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; Rev. 22:17), always in the sense of the Spirit
putting into man’s mouth what he should pray for. Whereas the Palestinian tradi-
tion did not permit reason to be dispensed with, there is recognition here of the
tradition represented in Philo, according to which inspiration uses a man as an
instrument (op. cit., 131; cf. 1 Cor. 14:7f., 13 ff.). What in 1 Cor. 14:7-12, 22
(cf. 11:5, 13) is the gift of tongues, which had a place in public worship, is here
described in terms of “‘sighs too deep for words’’. In other words, they are “‘glosso-
lalic utterances”’ (ibid.), which are the joint possession of the whole congregation.
The earthly occurrence is linked with a heavenly one, for intercession can only
take place at the right — hand of God (Rom. 8:34). In reply to Cranfield it may
be said that to speak of glossolalia here is a kind of shorthand covering ecstatic
utterance generally, and that the purported content of glossolalia in one place
must not be allowed to prejudge its purported content elsewhere. Moreover, Paul
883
PRAYER
clearly uses the stenagmois alalétois of the Spirit as a counterpart to the stenagmois
of men. Kasemann observes: ‘Since the spirit itself is acting here and the glosso-
lalia in the prayer of believers is the medium through which it cries to God, the
earthly phenomenon is the expression and reflection of a hidden heavenly one”’
(ibid., 133).
Paul does not develop this in a pietistic sense of raising us above our own
strength in order to bring us near to God. The Spirit does not free us from earthly
things, but as our proxy brings our needs to God in ways which we cannot express
ourselves. The utterances are not “the tongues of angels’’, indicating full possession
of the presence of God, as the Corinthians falsely supposed (1 Cor. 13:1), but a
sign of the church’s solidarity with the rest of the creation which likewise sighs or
groans (cf. synstenazei, groan together, v. 20, with the vb. stenazomen, we groan,
v. 23, and the noun stenagmois, with groans, v. 26). For the presence of the Spirit
is only the first fruits (—> Sacrifice, art. aparché) of the full reality of our adoption
as sons, the redemption of the body (v. 23). The reference to our body, which in
the Gk. is sing., could refer to the corporate body of the church (cf. Rom. 12:4 f.),
or it may refer to the physical body in view of the previous reference to the crea-
tion’s bondage to decay (v. 21). But perhaps the two ideas may coalesce here.
Kasemann detects a difference of attitude in Paul to glossolalia here and in |
Cor. 14 and 2 Cor. 12:5-10. He suggests that in Corinth Paul tried to repress the
phenomenon together with other ecstatic experiences and to make them a private
matter as far as possible (op. cit., 134; cf. his essay, ““Die Legitimitat des Apostels’’,
ZNW Al, 1942, 67 ff.), whereas here he allows congregational worship to be deeply
influenced by these things. But to say this is to go beyond the actual evidence.
What he does is to take account of the phenomenon as it occurs in the church and
give it an interpretation which is positive, but which cuts across that of the charis-
matics at Corinth and possibly also that of the charismatics at Rome. Moreover,
it may be said that, just as those who spoke in tongues at Corinth require an
interpreter to make their utterances intelligible to men (1 Cor. 14:13, 26 ff.), so in
Rom. those who sigh in prayer need the Spirit as an intercessor in order to make
their utterances intelligible to God (Rom. 8:26 f.).
Kasemann endorses Schniewind’s suggestion that “Prayer is described in Rom.
8.26 f. as it is formed from the dikaiosyné theou’’ (ibid.; cf. J. Schniewind, “‘Das
Seufzen des Geistes, R6m. 8, 26, 27’, Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsdtze, 1952,
81 f.). It 1s set in the context of justification and the — righteousness of God (cf.
8:1). Just as in justification there is the paradox of the sinner justified by faith, so
here there is the paradox of the sons of God being at one with the creation. The
weaknesses are not just spiritual failings but descriptions of the human condition.
Moreover, the glossolalia is not a sign that the church has arrived, as it were, and
of its advanced spirituality; rather it is for Paul “nothing other than the cry of the
tempted for liberty” (op. cit., 135). One may go beyond Kaésemann and point out
that Paul is not saying here that the sighing is an adequate form of worship. In
fact, he says the contrary. It is inadequate, in that it shows that we do not know
what to pray for as we ought, and that these utterances do not convey what is in
the mind of God. But this is more than made up for by the intercession of the
Spirit who intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words, lit. unspoken sighs (v.
26). This is acceptable to God, because God knows the mind of the Spirit and the
884
PRAYER
Spirit intercedes according to the will of God (v. 27). Later on Paul defines spiritual
or rational worship (logikén latreian, Rom. 12:1) in terms of presenting the body
‘‘as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” He then goes on to explain what
this means in terms of not being conformed to the world, of the renewal of the
mind, proving the will of God, the exercise of gifts in the body of Christ and daily
living in a world ruled by pagan authorities (chs. 12 and 13). These references
indicate how the worship described in ch. 8 is to be complemented. It involves the
dedication of the whole person to God in a way which is rational, embracing the
whole mind, and practical, reaching out into the practicalities of daily living in the
church and the world (— Serve, art. /atreud). C. Brown
—> Advocate, — Baptism, — Blessing, —~ Church, — Confess, — Curse, — Fast,
—> Father, — Feast, — Lord’s Supper, — Sacrifice, ~ Serve, — Song, — Temple,
— Tent, — Thank
(a). A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, \-II, New Century Bible, 1972; D. R. Ap-Thomas,
‘‘Notes on Some Themes Relating to Prayer’, VT 6, 1956, 225-41; P. R Baelz, Prayer and
Providence, 1968; G. J. Bahr, ‘‘The Use of the Lord’s Prayer in the Primitive Church’’, JBL 84,
1965, 153-59; and ‘“‘The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters”, JBL 87, 1968, 27-41; J. A. Bain,
The Prayers of the Apostle Paul, no date (19372); J. B. Bauer and H. Zimmermann, “‘Prayer”’’,
EBT II 679-86; G. Bertram, kroud, TDNT III 954-57; G. Bornkamm, ‘‘On the Understanding of
Worship’’, in Early Christian Experience, 1969, 161-79; R. E. Brown, ‘“‘The Pater Noster as an
Eschatological Prayer’, in New Testament Essays, 1965, 217-53; F. Bichsel, hiketéria, TDNT Il
296 f.; F. H. Chase, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church, 1891; F. D. Coggan, The Prayers of the
New Testament, 1967; R. M. Cooper, “‘Leitourgos Christou Iésou. Toward a Theology of Christian
Prayer’’, Anglican Theological Review 47, 1965, 263-75; O. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship,
SBT 10, 1953; G. Delling, Worship in the New Testament, 1962; C. W. Dugmore, The Influence of
the Synagogue upon the Divine Office, 1944; G. Ebeling, The Lord’s Prayer in Today’s World, 1966;
B. Van Elderen, ‘“The Verb in the Epistolary Invocation’’, Calvin Theological Journal 2, 1967, 46 ff. ;
W. Forster, Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times, 1964; G. Fohrer, History of Israelite
Religion, 1973; A. R. George, Communion with God in the New Testament, 1953; M. D. Goulder,
“The Composition of the Lord’s Prayer’, JTS New Series 14, 1963, 32-45; and Midrash and
Lection in Matthew, 1974, 296-301; F. C. Grant, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, 1960,
39-57; H. Greeven, deomai etc., TDNT II 40 ff. ; erdtad etc., TDNT II 685-89; and proskyned etc.,
TDNT VI 758-66; F. Hahn, The Worship of the Early Church, 1973; O. Hallesby, Prayer, 1936;
F. Heiler, Prayer: A Study in the History and Psychology of Religion, 1932; J. Heinemann, Prayer in
the Period of the Tanna’im and the Amora im: Its Nature and its Patterns, 1964; J. Hermann and H.
Greeven, euchomai etc., TDNT II 775-808; W. Herrmann, The Communion of the Christian with
God, (1895) 1972; J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, SBT Second Series 6, 1967; R. Jewett, ‘“The
Epistolary Thanksgiving and the Integrity of Philippians”, NovT 12, 1970, 40-53; N. B. Johnson,
Prayer in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, JBL Monograph Series 2, 1928; M. Kadushin, Worship
and Ethics: A Study in Rabbinic Judaism, 1963; E. Kaésemann, ‘“The Cry for Liberty in the Worship
of the Church’’, in Perspectives on Paul, 1971, 122-37; E. Lohmeyer, The Lord’s Prayer, 1965; J.
Lowe, The Lord’s Prayer, 1962; W. Lithi, The Lord’s Prayer: An Exposition, 1962; B. Martin,
Prayer in Judaism, 1968; ML 342-81; Moore, Judaism, I, 212-38; T. Y. Mullins, ““Greeting as a
New Testament Form’’, JBL 87, 1968, 418-26; and ‘“‘Petition as a Literary Form’’, NovT 5, 1964,
46-54; P. T. O’Brien, “‘Prayer in Luke-Acts’’, TB 24, 1973, 111-27; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Jewish
Background of the Christian Liturgy, 1925; W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and
Worship of the Synagogue. An Introduction to the Study of Judaism from the New Testament Period,
1907, D. Z. Phillips, The Concept of Prayer, 1965 (philosophical study); H. Ringgren, Jsraelite
Religion, 1966; G. Schlier, gony etc., TDNT I 378 ff.; H. Schirmann, Praying with Christ, 1964;
P.-O. Sjérgren, The Jesus Prayer, 1975; C. W. F. Smith, “‘Lord’s Prayer’’, JOB III 154-58; G.
Stahlin, aited etc., TDNT 1191-95; R. A. Stewart, Rabbinic Theology: An Introductory Study, 1961;
H. Thielicke, The Prayer that Spans the World: Sermons on the Lord’s Prayer, 1965; J. G.S.S.
Thomson, The Praying Christ: A Study of Jesus’ Doctrine and Practice of Prayer, 1959; C. Wester-
mann, The Praise of God in the Psalms, 1965; W. White, Jr., ““Lord’s Prayer’’, ZPEB III 972-78;
885
PRAYER/PRESENT
G. P. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the
Letters of St. Paul, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 24, 1974.
(b). G. Beer and O. Holtzmann, eds., Die Mischna. Text, Ubersetzung und Erklarung, 1912; W.
Bieder, ‘‘Gebetswirklichkeit und Gebetsmoglichtkeit bei Paulus: Das Beten des Geistes und das
Beten im Geist”, ThZ 4, 1948, 22-40; K. Berger, ‘‘Zu den sogenannten Satzen Heiligen Rechts’’,
NTS 17, 1970-71, 10-40; T. Boman, ‘“‘Der Gebetskampf Jesu’, NTS 10, 1963-64, 261-73; H. van
den Bussche, Le Notre Pére, 1959; F. Cabrol, La Priére des Premiers Chrétiens, 1929; J. Car-
mignac, Recherches sur le “‘Notre Pére’’, 1969; E. Delay, “‘A qui s’adresse la priére chrétienne?”’,
Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 37, 1949, 189-201; A. Deitzel, ‘“‘Beten im Geist.
Eine religionsgeschichtliche Parallele aus den Hodajot zum paulinischen Beten im Geist’,
ThZ 13, 1957, 12-32; F. J. D6lger, Sol Salutis: Gebet und Gesang im christlichen Altertum,
19252; J. Dodller, Das Gebet im Alten Testament in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, 1914;
G. Eichholz, Auslegung der Bergpredigt, BSt 37, 1963, especially 109 ff.; I. Elbogen, Der
jlidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 19313; and Die messianische Idee in den
alten jiuidischen Gebeten, 1912; J.-A. Eschlimann, La Priére dans S. Paul, 1934; A. Grovig, ‘“‘Die
Anbetung Christi im Neuen Testament”’, Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke, 1, 1930, 26-44; E. Gaugler,
‘“‘Der Geist und das Gebet der Schwachen Gemeinde’’, Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift 51,
1961, 67-94; E. F. von der Goltz, Das Gebet in der dltesten Christenheit. Eine geschichtliche
Untersuchung, 1902; J. Gnilka, ‘Jesus und das Gebet”’, BuL 6, 1965, 79-91; H. Greeven, Gebet
und Eschatologie im Neuen Testament, 1931; A. Grieff, Das Gebet im Alten Testament, 1915; A.
Hamman, La Priére, 1, Le Nouveau Testament, 1959; G. Harder, Paulus und das Gebet, 1936:
J. Hempel, Gebet und Frémmigkeit im Alten Testament, 1922; F. Hesse, Die Fiirbitte im Alten
Testament, Inaugural Dissertation, Erlangen, 1949; O. Holtzmann, ‘“‘Die tagliche Gebetstunden
im Judentum und Urchristentum’’, ZNW 12, 1911, 90-107; J. Horst, Proskynein, 1933; J. Jeremias,
‘‘Das Gebetsleben Jesu’, ZNW 25, 1926, 123-40; A. Juncker, Das Gebet bei Paulus, 1905; R.
Kerkhoff, Das Unabldassige Gebet. Beitrage zur Lehre vom immerwahrenden Beten im Neuen Testa-
ment, 1954; P. Ketter, “Vom Gebetsleben des Apostels Paulus”, Theologisch-praktische Quartal-
schrift 91, 1938, 23-40; A. Lawek, Das Gebet zu Jesus, 1921; A. Koberle, Schule des Gebets,
1959; K. G. Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim, WUNT 1, 1950; J. Marty, ‘“‘La
Priére dans le Nouveau Testament’’, Revue d’ Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 10, 1930, 90-98;
H. Miskotte, Der Weg des Gebets, 1964; K. Niederwimmer, ‘“‘Das Gebet des Geistes, ROm. 8,
26 f.”, ThZ 20, 1964, 252-65; J. M. Nielen, Gebet und Gottesdienst im Neuen Testament, 1937;
E. Orphal, Das Paulusgebet. Psychologisch-exegetische Untersuchung des Paulus-Geisteslebens auf
Grund seiner Selbstzeugnisse, 1933; W. Ott, Gebet und Heil. Die Bedeutung der Gebetspardnese
in der lukanischen Theologie, Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 12, 1965; J. M. Robinson,
‘Die Hodajot-Formel in Gebet und Hymnus des Friihchristentums”’, in W. Eltester, ed., Apo-
Phoreta. Festschrift fiir Ernst Haenchen, 1964, 194-235; 1. Rohr, Das Gebet im Neuen Testament,
1924; SB I 396-404; J. Scharbert, ‘‘Die Fiirbitte im Alten Testament”, ThG 50, 1960, 321 ff.; R.
Schnackenburg, ““Die Anbetung in Geist und Wahrheit (Joh. 4, 23) im Lichte von Qumran-Texten”’,
BZ 3, 1959, 88-94; J. Schniewind, ‘‘Das Seufzen des Geistes, ROm. 8. 26, 27’, in Nachgelassene
Reden und Aufsdtze, 1952, 81-103; H. Schonweiss, Beten? Ja, aber wie ?, 1962; W. Staerk, Alt-
jtidische liturgische Gebete, 1910; R. Storr, Die Frémmigkeit im Alten Testament, 1927, 175-91;
A. Wendel, Das freie Laiengebet im vorexilischen Israel, 1932; R. Zorn, Die Fiurbitte im Spdtjuden-
tum und im Neuen Testament, 1957; L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden historisch
entwickelt, 18922.
Present, Day, Maranatha, Parousia
The subject-matter of this article is closely associated with ideas dealt with under —
goal, come and -—> time. Throughout this whole area there occurs the same
tension, inherent in Christian eschatology, between that which is already present
and that which is still future. This tension can be shown by careful investigation
not to lie between the various words used but rather to extend right to the heart of
practically each individual word. However, the three concepts treated below, “‘the
886
PRESENT
Day”, Maranatha and Parousia, are all generally considered to have a future
reference and are therefore dealt with separately from the rest.
parousia, presence, coming, advent, a political and religious term in the Hellen-
istic world, refers in the NT mainly to the return of Jesus at the end of this age
(—> Time, art. aidn) and to this extent is closely related with the hémera, day (cf.
2 Pet. 3:12). The latter term has OT associations and, apart from its purely tech-
nical use as a measure of time, likewise means the last day or the day of the return
of Christ. The Aramaic ejaculation maranatha is an expression of certainty or
confident hope; it can be translated either: ““Our Lord has come’’, or: “‘Our Lord,
come’’.
cL A day can either denote the period of 24 hours, in which case it includes the
night (Xen., Anab. 4, 7, 28: they remained three days; cf. Mk. 6:21) or it may
exclude the night (Xen., Anab. 2, 2, 13: but when it was day; cf. Matt. 4:2). But
hémera can also mean a much longer period of time (Soph., Aj. 623 f., the mother,
who had been brought up in an earlier day); it can cover a lifetime (Soph., OC
1216 f., for many have left behind sundry days, i.e. their lifetime), or time generally
(Soph., E/. 266 f., what [fateful] days are mine, think you, when I see Aegisthus
sitting upon the throne; cf. Eph. 6:13; 1 Pet. 3:10).
oT 1. Like years and months (e.g. 2 Ki. 17:1; Exod. 2:2), days serve as a division
of time (Gen. 1:5—-2:2; Jos. 6:3), the Heb. word being almost invariably yém,
which often occurs within a fixed phrase. The day can include the night, in which
case it begins with the evening (Gen. 1:5), or be distinguished from the night
(Isa. 10:10). The word may indicate a particular day (Gen. 4:14, today; Job 3:1,
birthday) or (in the plur.) a period of time (Gen. 6:3, lifetime; Gen. 8:22, so long
as the earth remains; Ps. 90[89]:4, a thousand years in thy sight are but as yester-
day when it is past [— Number art. chilias, oT 3]; Isa. 60:22, days of mourning;
Jdg. 17:10, a year). Certain days have a special character: while six days of the
week are days of work, the seventh day is the — Sabbath (Exod. 20:9 f.; Lk. 4:16).
There are — feast days (Hos. 2:15; Neh. 8:9; Gal. 4:10). A day in the temple
courts is better than a thousand elsewhere (Ps. 84[83]:10). Man has no power over
the day of his death (Eccl. 8:8).
2. Those passages which speak of the day of Yahweh (y6m YHWBH) are of par-
ticular theological importance. But the phrase has various meanings. Originally
the day of Yahweh was a day of joy (this is assumed in Amos 5:18, 20; cf. Zech.
14:7). The prophets, however, re-interpreted this popular idea of a day of salva-
tion and proclaimed it instead as a day of unrelieved judgment (cf. Amos 5:18, 20;
Joel 1:15; 2:2). The event in view may be a political (Ezek. 34:12) or a cultic one
(cf. S. Mowinckel’s thesis of Yahweh’s coronation day in The Psalms in Israel’s
Worship, I, 1962, 116; “‘Jahwes dag’’, Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift 59, 1958, 1-56, 209-
29) or it may be the great eschatological event (e.g. Amos 8:9; Isa. 2:11 f., 17), the
latter often described in cosmological language (Zeph. 1:15; Joel 3:14). H. Gress-
mann suggested that the day of the Lord was a foreign importation (Der Ursprung
der israelitisch-jiidischen Eschatologie, FRLANT 6, 1905). But G. von Rad and
887
PRESENT
others see its origin within the traditions of Israel’s holy war (Der heilige Krieg im
alten Israel, 1949; ‘‘The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh’’, JSS 4,
1959, 97-108; Old Testament Theology, Ul, 1965, 119-25; cf. also K.-D. Schunk,
““Strukturlinien der Vorstellung vom Tag Yahwes” VT 14, 1964, 319 ff.; H. W.
Robinson, /nspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament, 1946, 135—47, who gives
a critique of Mowinckel).
In many cases it is difficult to distinguish the one from the other. The day of
Yahweh can mean the fall of — Jerusalem and so belong to the past (Lam. 1:21)
or, aS in the eschatological passages mentioned above, be still future. It can be
imminent (Ezek. 7:7), so that the hearers give heed to the prophetic message (Mic.
1:2). But no time-scale may be indicated (Isa. 24:21). The day may even be re-
garded (by the sinner at least) as a long way off (Amos 6:3; 9:10). This shows that
the prophets’ preaching of the day of Yahweh cannot be isolated from concrete
situations but can always be seen to have taken place in a particular historical
context. However, H. H. Rowley contended that, while in some passages the day
of the Lord was conceived of as nigh at hand (Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1;
3:14 [MT 4:4]; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:14; in Lam. 1:12; 2:1, 21 f. it is already past),
all OT writers thought of it as breaking into history in a spectacular fashion (‘“The
Day of the Lord’’, in The Faith of Israel, 1956, 179). Moreover, while judgment may
be nigh, there is also the thought of a golden age beyond it which may be presented
as being near or far. But nowhere is it brought about by human achievement or the
policies contrived by men. The golden age in which prophecy merges into apocalyp-
tic has a universal character (cf. Isa. 11:6; 65:17, 21; Mic. 4:4). Sometimes the
nations are depicted as serving Israel (Isa. 60:10 ff.; 61:5; Dan. 2:44; 7:27), or
Israel’s king as holding universal sway (Zech. 9:9 f.; Pss. 2:8 f.; 72:8, 10 f.; Mic.
5:2, 4 [MT 5:1, 3]). Jer. 3:17 declares that only universal submission to God can
eliminate that which militates against well-being. The thought of the Gentiles
sharing the faith of Israel also comes into the prophetic vision (Pss. 22:27; 96:1 ff.,
9f.; 102:15f., 21 f.; Jer. 16:19 ff.; Zeph. 3:10; Zech. 2:11; 8:22f.). Rowley
points out that passages like Isa. 42:1, 3, 6; 43:10; 45:22; 49:6; 66:19 f. did not
proclaim universalism for the first time. Rather they related it to the mission of
Israel. The Gentiles are also envisaged in the books of Ruth and Jonah which are
widely regarded as tracts on the theme of the Gentiles sharing in Israel’s salvation
and polemics against a narrow, exclusive Jewish outlook. Rowley further argues
that the figures of the Son of man, suffering servant and messiah, and the idea
of the kingdom of God all converge on the day of the Lord (op. cit., 194-201).
G. Braumann
3. The Hebrews had no word for time in the abstract, and similarly had no
corresponding expressions for past, present and future. For fuller discussion —
Time; cf. also T. Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, 1960; J. Barr, The
Semantics of Bibical Language, 1961; and Biblical Words for Time, SBT 33, 1962;
and S. J. DeVries, Yesterday, Today and Tommorrow: Time and History in the
Old Testament, 1975. Of the various words used to express aspects of time by far
the most frequent in Heb. is y6m (cf. DeVries, op. cit., 42). Often it is qualified by a
genitival phrase, an infinitive, or a relative clause introduced by **Ser (that or when).
888
PRESENT
Thus there could be a y6m of salvation experienced in a variety of past events: the
day of Israel’s election (Deut. 9:24; Ezek. 16:4 f.); the day of the plague on —
Egypt and other days connected with the saving events of the exodus (Exod. 10:13;
12:17; Num. 11:32); the day of the dedication of the tabernacle (Num. 9:15); of the
giving of the law (Deut. 4:10); of the victory over the Amorites (Jos. 10:12). Out
of this arose a variety of stock expressions like ““On the day when I brought them
out of Egypt ...” (Jdg. 19:30; 1 Sam. 8:8; 2 Sam. 7:6; Isa. 11:16; Jer. 7:22;
11:4, 7; 31:32; 34:13: Hos. 2:17; Ps. 78:42). De Vries suggests that this provided
the model for speaking of another past day of salvation experienced in the return
from exile (Hag. 2:15, 18 f.; Zech. 4:10; 8:9) and that what was true corporately
for Israel could similarly be applied to the individual (Pss. 18:18; 20:2; 59:17;
77:3; 138:3; 140:8; Lam. 3:57; cf. op. cit., 43). But the days could also be re-
membered as a day of judgment (Num. 32:10; 2 Chr. 28:6; Pss. 78[77]:9; 95[94]:
8; 137[136]:7; Isa. 9:3, 13; Lam. 1:12; 2:1, 21 f.; Ezek. 31:15; 34:12; Hos. 10:14;
Obad. 11, 14; Zech. 14:3). Whereas in some of these instances yém 1s a literal day,
in others it appears to denote a concrete time which may have extended for more
than twenty-four hours, but which was nevertheless characterized by a specific
event. The plur. yamim, however, “‘is used not so much to memorialize a unique
event as to identify and specify the duration of a period of time, whether this be
limited or unlimited, definite or indefinite’ (DeVries, op. cit., 43).
In connection with day thought of in the past sense it may be observed that the
two Gen. creation narratives both use y6m and the corresponding Gk. hémera: the
seven-day narrative (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13 f., 16, 18 f., 23, 31; 2:2-4a, attributed to P)
and the one-day creation and fall narrative (Gen. 2:4b—3:24, attributed to J).
The word day occurs again in Gen. 2:17: “‘but of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”’ This was
evidently not understood in a strictly literal sense of physical death within twenty-
four hours. Rather, it brought a change in the human condition which affects man
all the days of his life (Gen. 3:17; cf. also v. 14). Various attempts have been made
to harmonize the narratives with a modern scientific view of the world involving
some form of concordism, such as the view that the days correspond to geological
eras. But these place a considerable strain on both scientific theory and the biblical
text, e.g. the creation of light and plants before the sun and moon (for discussion
see B. Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 1955, 120-56). Moreover,
if the six creation-days of Gen. 1 correspond to geological eras, it does not help to
harmonize Gen. 2:4b, which locates the creation of man on the day that the earth
and the heavens were made, apparently prior to the planting of the garden of
Eden. It would, therefore, seem best to recognize both creation narratives as pre-
scientific schematizations symbolically representing the origin of the world from
God in its order and relative autonomy (cf. N. H. Ridderbos, Js there a Conflict
between Genesis I and Natural Science ?, 1957; C. Westermann, Creation, 1974).
The type of discourse here may be compared with the — parable in the teaching of
Jesus and the cosmic visions in Rev. dealing with the end-time, only here we are
dealing with primeval pre-history. The six creation days followed by a rest day in
Gen. | are seen in Exod. 20:11 to be a divine pattern for human activity in ex-
plaining the Fourth Commandment concerning the — sabbath. The par. in Deut.
5:12-15 omits the reference to creation but supplies a soteriological reason. Just as
889
PRESENT
Yahweh brought Israel out of forced labour in Egypt and gave him rest, so the
servant and beast (like their master) are to be set free from toil on the sabbath day.
The present day may be characterized by laments and distress (Pss. 20[19]:9;
49[48]:5; 86:7; 102:3f.; 2 Ki. 19:3; Isa. 37:3; 61:2; 63:4; Jer. 17:16 ff; Lam.
1:7; Hos. 9:7), but also by salvation (Isa. 49:8). However, DeVries draws a basic
distinction in the present use of yém between the day that is historically present and
the day in gnomic discourse (i.e. teaching that has to do with popular wisdom,
especially in the form of proverbs and aphorisms) and in cultic regulations. In
these latter it refers to a “‘today”’ that is continually repeated and hence continuously
present. Examples of the gnomic present are Job 18:20; 20:28; 38:20; Pss. 20(19):
9; 37(36):19; 102(101):3; Prov. 11:4; and in the plur. Job 14:14; 30:16, 27; Pss.
37(36):19; 94(93):13; Prov. 15:15; Eccl. 7:15; 9:9; 11:19; 12:1. Instances of the
cultic present include Exod. 20:8; 31:15; 35:3; 40:2; Lev. 15:25; 19:6; 23:15, 27f.;
24:8; 25:9; Num. 10:10; 15:32; 28:9; Deut. 5:15; Isa. 58:13; Jer. 17:22, 24, 27;
Ezek. 46:1, 4, 12 (for further details see DeVries, op. cit., 45 ff.).
The future may be described in terms of a coming (eschatological) day (Isa.
13:9; Jer. 47:4; Ezek. 38:18; cf. 39:8; Mic. 7:4; Mal. 4:1). The day of the Lord
and similar expressions containing the word yém figures prominently in oracles of
judgment against foreign nations (Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 4:14; Obad. 15).
But Israel may also be the object of judgment (Isa. 2:12; Ezek. 13:5; Joel 1:15;
2:1, 11; 3:4; Amos 5:18, 20; Zeph. 1:7; Mal. 4:5). However, “‘it is important to
observe that there is no set technical expression for the so-called ‘day of Yahweh’ ”’
(DeVries, op. cit., 48; see pp. 48-51 for details of the various expressions used). It
may be referred to as “their day of calamity” (Jer. 46:21), “‘a day of distress’? (Hab.
3:16), a “day of downfall” (Ezek. 26:18; 27:27; 32:10), “‘a bitter day’ (Amos 8:10),
‘an evil day” (Amos 6:3) etc. But it can also be a day of salvation: “‘the day when
Yahweh binds up” (Isa. 30:26), “the day when I cleanse” (Ezek. 36:33), “‘the day
when Yahweh gives rest”’ (Isa. 14:3), “the day when I pay attention” (Jer. 27:22),
“the day when I honour myself” (Ezek. 39:13), “‘the day when he fights’ (Zech.
14:3). Similarly, the prophets can use the plur. and say “Behold, the days are
coming, when...” in both oracles of judgment (Isa. 39:6; Jer. 7:32; 9:24; 19:6;
48:12; 49:2; 51:47, 52) and of salvation (Jer. 16:11; 23:5, 7; 30:3; 31:27, 31, 38;
33:14; Amos 9:13).
In addition to this, the OT contains adverbial expressions of time such as
bayyom hahi’, on that day, which is used of the past some 89 times and of the future
112 times, and hayy6m which 1s used of the present, today, 217 times. The central
part of DeVries’s work constitutes a detailed examination and.classification of
these various passages, showing the function of words connected with time in
respect of the literary form of their respective passages. Of theological significance
is his conclusion that the function of the references to Yahweh’s day, whether in
the past or the future, is to illuminate the present “‘today’’. “Historiography
provides the model for parenesis, employing the image of revelatory event in the
past to illuminate the revelatory significance of the present. Eschatology is, then,
an analogical projection of the past and the present into the future, positing Yah-
weh’s coming action on his action already experienced. ... In the early passages,
at any rate, ‘the day of Yahweh’ is not to be understood as the termination of
history. It is analogous to bayyém hahii’, used absolutely in a futuristic sense, as in
890
PRESENT
I Kings 22:25, Isa. 52:6, and Amos 8:3. The interpretative framework is not chrono-
logical, placing this day within or at the end of a sequence of days, but qualifying,
characterizing it as a day of Yahweh’s decisive action in which all the complexities
and ambiguities of the present situation are brought to a complete — and in this
sense final — resolution. But, as Yahweh has often acted decisively in the past, so
there may need to be recurring days of Yahweh in the future. In fact, ‘today’ — this
very day — may be a ‘day of Yahweh’ ”’ (op. cit., 341). Any day may become Yah-
weh’s day, but only those days actively become his day when he manifests himself
in judgment and salvation (cf. Ps. 95[94]:7; Jer. 28:9; Ezek. 33:33; Mal. 3:1, 3,
19-21).
The prophets frequently spoke of the day of the Lord as imminent (cf. Isa. 10:27;
27:1; 29:19; Hag. 2:23; Zech. 6:10). DeVries comments: “‘In agreement with the
majority of modern interpreters, we affirm that Israel’s prophets were predicting
the future only as a proximate projection of the present. They were immediately
deducing the future out of the present, less by way of political astuteness than out
of faith in the being and nature of Israel’s covenant God” (op. cit., 342). In the
apocalyptic writings the idea is transformed. The future is increasingly abstracted
from the present and has an epoch of its own. Thus Zech. 14:21 depicts the future
more in terms of a state of being than a decisive event (cf. Isa. 61:3; Dan. 7).
DeVries considers that many of the distinctions employed by scholars to charac-
terize the Hebrew conception of time (e.g. between “outer” and “‘inner’’ history;
between “‘linear’’ and “‘cyclical’’ history; between “‘man’s time” and “‘God’s time’’;
and between “‘secular time’”’ and “‘sacred time’’) fall wide of the mark. “‘The only
ready-to-hand polarity that seems really applicable is a contrast between what we
would call two different approaches to the identical temporal phenomena: the
quantitative approach and the qualitative approach”’ (op. cit., 343). The quantita-
tive approach sees time as a succession of commensurate entities — a given number
of days, months or years. These can be measured mathematically. The qualitative
approach sees time as a succession of essentially unique, incommensurate ex-
periences. Thus the day takes its determination from the event which gives it its
character. Because God acts in it, it has an eschatological dimension and thus
becomes the decisive day of divine action. This Hebraic view of time stands in
contrast with that of the Egyptians for whom time was an endless, meaningless
continuum, caught in a perpetual seasonal pattern of alteration (op. cit., 344; cf.
E. Otto, “‘Altagyptische Zeitvorstellungen und Zeitbegriffe’’, Die Welt als Ges-
chichte 14, 1954, 135-48). The early Mesopotamian writings indicate a greater
awareness of the distinction between different times, but did not see any underlying
purpose, significance or interrelation between different times (cf. H. Gese, “Ge-
schichtliches Denken im alten Orient und im Alten Testament’’, Z7K 55, 1958,
127 ff.). But in Israel Yahweh was Lord of past, present and future. ‘History
therefore was filled with positive potentiality. It has a goal and a meaning” (De
Vries, op. cit., 344 f.). In the OT the quantitative approach provides the framework
of continuity, allowing for the interconnectedness of specific events. But it 1s the
qualitative approach which gives the historical event its theological significance.
It would be inaccurate to say that the same conceptions and emphases are found
uniformly throughout the OT. In the historical writings (especially after the divi-
sion of the kingdom), in those concerned with the cult and apocalyptic literature
891
PRESENT
the quantitative approach predominates, whereas in the prophetic writings the
qualitative is dominant. But the differences between the cultic/gnomic conception
of time and the historical/prophetic conception may be overstated. For while the
practice of the cult could lead to a cyclical attitude to life characterized by the
performance of daily rites and annual feasts, there are many passages in the OT
which seek to invest the present with an awareness of the acts of God in time and
of man’s relationship with him in time. “‘For Deuteronomy the present generation
is addressed as the generation that heard Yahweh speak from Horeb, being called
not only to a new remembrance but to a new obedience”’ (DeVries, op. cit., 347).
The Passover ordinance prescribed an annual rite, but the whole purpose of the
rite is to summon the Israelite to reflect on the day in which his people were brought
out of Egypt (Exod. 13:3-10). Similarly, Ps. 95:7 confronts the worshipper with
the reflection that his “today” is the day of crisis in which the opportunities and
the judgment which befell the wilderness generation are realized in his life.
C. Brown
4. Apocalyptic and later Judaism carried still further the idea of the future day,
with eschatology now becoming part of the doctrine of the last things and develop-
ing strong apocalyptic features. The questions are asked: How long will this age
last? When can we expect the new age? (2 Esd. 4:33, 35; cf. Mk. 13:4). The
messianic age will be preceded by a time of tribulation, sub-divided into twelve
shorter periods (Syr.Bar. 27) and marked, among other things, by unrighteousness
and licentiousness (2 Esd. 5:2 ff.; cf. Matt. 24:12). The new age will be heralded
by signs (Syr.Bar. 25:4; cf. Mk. 13:24), and “‘the end” (Syr.Bar. 29:7 f.; cf. Mk.
13:7) will be the transition to the days of messiah when judgment will give way to
wisdom, sinlessness, life (Eth.Enoch 5:8 f.). The future eschatological world was
originally thought to be identical with the age of messiah, but later these were
separated into two consecutive periods (SB II 552). For further discussion see S.
Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956, 261-79; D. S. Russell, The Method and Message
of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 B.C.-A.D. 100, 1964, 263-303; R. A. Stewart, Rabbinic
Theology, 1961, 47-53; W. Forster, Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times,
1964, 192-201; and L. Hartman, ““The Functions of Some so-Called Apocalyptic
Time-tables’, NTS 22, 1975-76, 1-14. It is sometimes said that in answer to the
prophets’ question ‘““How long, O Lord, how long?’’, the apocalyptists give the
year, the day and the hour (cf. D. S. Russell, op. cit., 1). But L. Hartman questions
this, suggesting that the supporting evidence is less strong than is sometimes
supposed (Dan. 9 being the most clear-cut example; -- Number). From his ex-
amination of Ass.Mos. 10:12, Apc.Abr. 28-31, and Eth.Enoch 91-94 in the light of
modern semantics, he concludes that the time-tables have different functions. In
Dan. they have a certain informative-theoretical function concerning the date of
the end, but even so they are coupled with practical functions. But elsewhere they
have predominantly a practical function such as exhortation. ‘““When the literary
convention of different kinds of apocalyptic timetables was developed in Jewish
apocalyptical literature, it had not primarily a theoretical, informative, and cal-
culating function, but rather some practical one. To put it another way: the time-
tables were aimed less at the brain than at the heart and hands’’ (op. cit., 14).
The days of — messiah were expected to bring in renewal, a righting of wrongs,
892
PRESENT
and the — restoration of all that had been lost through Adam’s transgression. So,
e.g., the nations which had oppressed Israel will be destroyed, while Israel’s boun-
daries will be fully restored in the new — temple (though on this point there was
not absolute unanimity). Israel will be rich to a degree hitherto unknown. Both
man and nature will increase in fruitfulness. Sinful desires, and the devil himself,
will be destroyed. The Holy Spirit will be poured out. Sickness and death will be
removed and the dead will arise (see SB IV, 2, 799-976).
5. The Qumran texts regard the date of the eschatological day as being already
fixed (1QM 13:14). It will bring the annihilation of those who do not keep the
commandments (CD 8:1); it will be the day of God’s visitation (ibid.), the end of
days (1QpHab 2:6; 9:6), the day of vengeance (1QS 10:19), the day of slaughter
(1QH 15:17), when evil-doers will be destroyed (ibid.), including all carvers of
idols for the nations (1QpHab 12:13 f.; 13:1 ff.). There will be a battle with fearful
carnage (1QM 1:9) as the sons of light war against the sons of darkness (1QM 1:11).
In the day of catastrophe all men fit for war are to be ready for the day of vengeance
(1QM 7:5; 15:2 f.). God will then be praised (1QM 18:5), and on the day of
judgment those who are willing to be added to the elect will be saved (1Q 14:7 ff.).
However, the Qumran texts do not appear to mention explicitly “‘the day of Yah-
weh’’. (On Qumran eschatology see M. Burrows, More Light on the Dead Sea
Scrolls, 1958, 342-52; and, more fully, Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons
of Light against the Sons of Darkness, 1962.)
NT 1. In the short — resurrection narratives there are striking expressions of time:
on the third day (1 Cor. 15:4; Matt. 16:21; Lk. 9:22; — Number, art. tritos)
or after three days (Mk. 8:31; 9:31; 10:34; — Number, art. treis). G. Delling
suggests that the early Christian accounts were influenced by the eschatological
expectation of Hos. 6:2 which also influenced rabbinic expectation: “‘After two
days he will revive us [i.e. the nation]; on the third day he will raise us up, that we
may live before him” (cf. TDNT II 949). According to Pirge R. Eliezer 51, the
passage was proof of the resurrection of the dead on the third day after the end
of the world (SB I 747; cf. 647, 649). But in 2 Esd. 7:29 ff. it occurs after seven
days. — Number, art. hepta.
The situation is similar with regard to the space of 40 days, which already has
OT significance, both —-> Moses and — Elijah being said to fast 40 days and nights
(Exod. 34:38; 1 Ki. 19:8;-—» Number, art. tessarakonta). The question may be
asked whether the length of Jesus’ fast (Matt. 4:2 par. Mk. 1:13, Lk 4:2) was
merely coincidental, or whether there is a link with other OT passages (cf. Deut.
8:2 f., 15 f.). Clearly there is an allusion to the wilderness — temptation of Israel
in the quotations from Deut. 8:3 (Matt. 4:4; Lk. 4:7), Deut. 6:16 (Matt. 4:7;
Lk. 4:12) and Deut. 6:13 (Matt. 4:10; Lk. 4:8). There is the further parallelism
between Jesus and Moses (Deut. 9:19; cf. also the giving of the Sermon on the
Mount afterwards) and with Deut. 34:1-4 and Ps. 91. In the temptation stories
Jesus recapitulates the experiences of Israel, particularly the wilderness generation.
(On the temptation see E. Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan
Soteriology, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 2, 1965, B.
Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son (Matt. 4:I1-11 & Par): An Analysis of an
Early Christian Midrash, Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series 2:1, 1966.)
893
PRESENT
2. (a) The expectation of the last day is to be found in almost all the literary
strata of the NT: pre-Pauline (Rom. 13:12); Paul (Rom. 2:5); Q (Matt. 10:15;
Lk. 10:12); Mark and his tradition (Mk. 13:32); Matthew and his tradition
(Matt. 12:36); Luke (Acts 17:31); one stratum of the Gospel of Jn., often assumed
to be a later one which received prominence in the final redaction (Jn. 6:39; cf.
also 1 Jn. 4:17); Jude 6; 2 Pet. 3:12; Eph. 4:30; 2 Tim. 1:12; Rev. 9:6 etc. Other
portions of the Gospel of Jn. (the more primitive ones, according to modern
conjecture) contain the idea that the last day is not still to come, but has already
arrived with the coming of Jesus and the exercise of faith in him (Jn. 3:18 f.; see
also Jn. 7:37). (On Johannine eschatology see below the note on The Parousia and
Eschatology in the NT, 2 (d).)
The phraseology varies, reference being made to that day (2 Tim. 4:8), the last
day (Jn. 6:30), the day of wrath (Rev. 6:17), the day of judgment (2 Pet. 2:9),
the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2), the day of the Son of man (Lk. 17:24), the
day of Christ (Phil. 2:16), the great day of God (Rev. 16:14) or simply the day
(1 Cor. 3:13). The plur. is also common (e.g. 2 Tim. 3:1; 2 Pet. 3:3; Rev. 9:6; 10:7).
(b) There are differing statements as to when the last day takes place. Paul
teaches the received doctrine of an apocalyptic day still to come (Rom. 2:5; 2 Cor.
1:14), yet at the same time he regards himself as already involved in the eschato-
logical event. Not only does he take over the existing tradition of the nearness of
the last day (Rom. 13:12), but in addition calls upon his readers to walk “‘as in the
day” (v. 13), “now” being the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2). In other words, the
ages are intertwined. With the parousia being long delayed, the imminent day of
Rom. 13:12 comes to be separated out from the remote “‘Last Day” (e.g. 2 Pet.
3:8). The suddenness of the last day, which has nothing to do with its imminence
or otherwise, is taught in various strata of the NT: e.g. 1 Thess. 5:2, 4; Lk. 21:34 f.;
2 Pet. 3:10. The date is unknown (Mk. 13:32; Matt. 24:42; 25:13). As in apocalyp-
tic, a period of tribulation and catastrophe will precede the last day (cf. Mk. 13;
2 Tim. 3:1; Rev. 2:10), or is inseparable from it (so apparently 2 Cor. 6:2 ff.).
(c) The events associated with the last day are as follows: God (Acts 17:31) or
Christ (1 Cor. 1:8; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2 Cor. 5:10) is to be the judge of the world, and
will reward each one according to his deeds (Rom. 2:5; — Judgment). Only then,
according to Matt., will the separation take place between those who are to enter
into the kingdom and those who are to be cast out (1.e. in this present age the church
is still a mixed body, containing both groups as yet undifferentiated; Matt. 25:34,
41). The — resurrection of the dead, too, is associated with the judgment (1 Cor.
15:52; Jn. 11:24). Thus the last day becomes a day both of — fear (Matt. 10:15)
and of — joy (Lk. 6:23; 21:28; 2 Tim. 4:8).
The message of the last day is not confined to the future, however, but has a
definite application to the present. Paul regards the church now in existence as
being his glory on the last day (Phil. 2:16; 2 Cor. 1:14). Its members are to conduct
themselves even now as “‘on that day” (Rom. 13:13) and as answerable to God when
that day comes (Matt. 25:31 ff.). They must be watchful since its date is unknown
(Matt. 24:42), and because it will come suddenly (1 Thess. 5:6). There is also an
eschatological aspect to the observance of the — Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:29 par.
Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:16; 1 Cor. 11:26).
3. The futurity of the last day (Matt. 25:13) does not alter the fact that the
894
PRESENT
exalted Lord is even now with his church “all the days” (Matt. 28:20; 18:20). In
Jn. the paraklétos is the representative of Christ (cf. Jn. 16:5-15 with 16:16 ff.;
—» Advocate). A certain duration of time is indicated by phrases such as kath’
hemeran, daily (Matt. 26:55; Mk. 14:49 [though A. W. Argyle thinks that the
meaning here is ‘‘by day’, ExpT 63, 1951-52, 354]; Lk. 16:19; 22:53; Acts 2:46 f.;
3:2; 16:5; 19:9; 1 Cor. 15:31; 2 Cor. 11:28; Heb. 7:27; 10:11), hémera kai
hémera, day after day, which is probably a Hebraism (2 Cor. 4:16; cf. Est. 3:4;
Ps. 68[67]:20). (For these and other expressions see Arndt, 346 f.) This present
—» time, although it merges even now with the age to come (1 Cor. 15:20 ff.; 2
Cor. 4:16), is still characterized by tribulation (1 Cor. 15:31 f., I die daily; Rom.
8:38; 2 Cor. 11:28). It is sometimes suggested that the importance of this present
time increases as the last day becomes more distant: the believer is to take up his
cross daily (Lk. 9:23), and to pray for his daily bread (Lk. 11:3 par. Matt. 6:11; —
Bread, art. epiousios); the early church assembles daily in tbe temple and daily
grows in members (Acts 2:46, 47). On this question — parousia, NT.
4. The apostles’ visits to cities and churches are generally short, lasting no more
than a few days: Paul remains in Jerusalem 15 days (Gal. 1:18); according to
Acts 10:48 Peter is asked to remain for some days in the household of Cornelius;
Paul spends some days in Philippi (Acts 16:12). Paul’s stay in Corinth (Acts 18:11,
18) is an exception to this general rule. G. Braumann
[ papavada | Hapava@a (maranatha), maranatha, ‘‘Our Lord has
HOP come!’’, “Our Lord is coming!’’, or “Our Lord, come!”’
1. maranatha is an Aram. word found in the NT only in | Cor. 16:22: “If anyone
has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha [or Marana tha].’’ Its
precise meaning is disputed, though it is certainly a combination of the Aram.
maran or marana’, our Lord, and the verb ’afa’, to come. Either we take it as a
perfect (maran "*ta’), i.e. our Lord has come, or as an imperative (ma@rand’ ta), 1.e.
our Lord, come! Other meanings are unlikely.
Apart from | Cor. 16:22, the word is found in the prayers associated with the
Lord’s Supper in the Didache (Did. 10:6; c. A.D. 100), but all subsequent refer-
ences are based on | Cor. 16:22. Where the phrase originated is a matter of dispute.
W. Heitmiller (ZNW 13, 1912, 333 f.) and W. Bousset (Kyrios Christos, [19217]
ET 1970, 129) assume it to have come from the bi-lingual Gk. and Aram. speaking
churches of Antioch and Damascus, or even Tarsus. In Hellenistic syncretistic
religion the gods were widely referred to as “‘lords’’ (kyrioi; cf. 1 Cor. 8:5), and
the view of Heitmiiller and Bousset is that maranatha indicates the transference of
this heathen term to the Lord Jesus Christ. Our knowledge of the above-mentioned
churches is too slight for this thesis to be finally disproved. On the other hand, the
theory lacks confirmation. The ascription of lordship to Jesus in Aram. and its
presence in this formula suggest that it goes back to the very earliest Christian
church with its centre in Jerusalem which acknowledged the risen Christ as its
Lord. Hence, most expositors still regard the Jerusalem church as the most likely
source of the phrase. Moreover, if this 1s so, it suggests that the term — Lord is to
be understood against a Jewish rather than a syncretistic background.
895
PRESENT
2. (a) Both translations of the phrase are tenable, i.e. it can be construed either
as a perfect or as an imperative. The church fathers as a rule understood it as being
perfect, though this interpretation may also include the present: “Our Lord has
come and is now here’’. In this case, Phil. 4:5 (“‘the Lord is at hand’) may be a
reference to the phrase maranatha. The statement of 1 Cor. 16:22 is then a warn-
ing: the preceding words, “If any one has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed”’
(RSV), are further stressed by this reference to the nearness of the Lord. The same
may be true of the call to repentance in Did. 10, 6.
(b) The imperative, however, is the more likely interpretation. Appeal may be
made to Rev. 22:20, where the words “‘“Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!’’ may be a free
rendering of the original Aram. ejaculatory prayer. Then there is the fact that the
word ’abba’, > Father (Mk. 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), is similarly handed
down from Aram., the mother tongue of Jesus, and is likewise an ejaculatory
prayer. It is quite understandable that these brief prayers should be passed on in
their original form. No immediate connection with the context is essential.
3. Since in Did. 10:6 the word maranatha occurs in prayers associated with the
Lord’s Supper, it may be assumed to have been used in the liturgy of the Supper,
perhaps even from the very beginning (cf. F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology:
Their History in Early Christianity, 1969, 96), though this cannot be conclusively
demonstrated. 1 Cor. 11:26 shows that from the outset the Lord’s Supper looked
forward in hope to the coming of the Lord; also the words of institution in Matt.
26:29 par. Mk. 14:25 point forward to this final accomplishment. The prayers
associated with the Lord’s Supper in the Didache (chs. 9 and 10) show how very
much alive this hope remained even at a later period. Thus maranatha is to be
understood, in the light of Rev. 22:20, as a prayer for the coming of the Lord in
the sense of the last advent. This need not be the only thought, however, for as Jn.
14:18 speaks of the risen Lord coming to his own, maranatha may also include this
idea within its scope, and such a prayer was in fact partially answered whenever
the church celebrated the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, if the prayer did stem from
the earliest church, the latter must inevitably have been familiar with prayer to
Jesus, even at such an early date. W. Mundle
4. Several writers have seen the possibility of an alternative or complementary
setting to that of the Lord’s Supper (cf. E. Peterson, HEIS THEOS, 1926; C. F. D.
Moule, “‘A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha’’, NTS 6, 1959-60, 307—
10; W. Dunphy, “Maranatha: Development in Early Christianity’, Jrish Theo-
logical Quarterly 37, 1970, 294 ff.; M. Black, ““The Maranatha Invocation and
Jude 14, 15 (1 Enoch 1:9)’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit
in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, 1973, 189-96).
It is suggested that in the first instance at least maranatha in 1 Cor. 16:22, Did.
10:6 and Rev. 22:20 was used to reinforce or sanction the curse or ban (— Curse,
art. anathema). The NT contexts in question are not that of the Lord’s Supper but
that of cursing, and the idea of invoking the Lord’s Presence in the Lord’s Supper
belongs more to later church history than the NT period. Formal parallels with
ancient pagan cursing formulae have been noted (cf. R. Wiinsch, Antike Fluchtafeln,
Kleine Texte 20, 1907, 13, 25; K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, I, 1928, 89-
90; A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1927, 413 ff.; CIG, IV, 9303). The
896
PRESENT
Constitutiones Apostolorum 6, 26, 5 relates maranatha to the historical coming of
Christ. But maranatha occurs in connection with the anathema in early church
texts (MPL, LXXXVII, 1274; Tert., De Pudicitia 14, 13; Canon 75 of the Fourth
Council of Toledo, A.D. 633). This would suggest that the original idea was an
invocation that the Lord would soon come in judgment to redress wrong and
establish right (cf. Moule, op. cit.).
In addition to these points Black draws attention to parallels with Jude 14 f.:
“It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied
saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all,
and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have
committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly
sinners have spoken against him.’”’ This is a quotation from Enoch 1:9 and is
exemplified not only in Gr.Enoch 1:9 and Eth.Enoch 1|:3-9 but also in the Aram.
fragments of 4QEn 1:4—9 found at Qumran (text in Black, op. cit., 193 f.; cf. also
M. Black, ‘“‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’’,
NTS 18, 1971-72, 10). Jude is giving a christological interpretation of Enoch.
Unfortunately the opening words of the Aram. of v. 9 are lost in the Qumran text,
but Black suggests that they would be verbally identical with the maranatha
formula, i.e. Mara’ ’ata’ or ’ate’. Although it could be argued that the similarity
is purely coincidental, Black thinks that it is too great to be accidental. “If the
possibility is conceded, then the original setting of the maranatha formula at 1 En.
1:9, where it refers to a divine judgment on the wicked, not only supports the
Parousia reference in the New Testament but can also account for its use as a rein-
forcement of the anathema: no formula would lend itself more to the purpose of an
imprecation or a ban. At the same time, it would be equally appropriate within a
eucharistic setting, since the eucharist contains, as an integral element in its
structure, the proclamation of the Lord’s death ‘until He come’ ” (op. cit., 195).
Black himself prefers to take the original form of the words as a future perfect, the
equivalent of a prophetic perfect: ‘‘ “The Lord will (soon, surely) come’ (i.e. at the
Parousia)” (op. cit., 196). But the Gk. could be construed as an imperative or as a
perfect. Black concludes: “‘perhaps the popularity of the formula was its ambiguity
and hence flexibility: it could be fitted into different contexts, in the eucharist, as an
imprecation, or as a confession (“The Lord has come’)”’ (op. cit., 196).
Without wishing to question this general conclusion, attention may be drawn
to one further passage. A. M. Hunter suggests that far from being a piece of im-
precatory mumbo-jumbo, maranatha was probably the first Christian prayer look-
ing back to Matt. 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there
am I in the midst of them.” Hunter relates this to the Lord’s Supper, looking back to
the first Easter day, invoking the presence of the Lord (cf. Lk. 24:35; Acts 10:41)
and beseeching the Lord to come in glory (Exploring the New Testament, 98; cf.
Black, op. cit., 192). But the context in Matt. is patently not eucharistic, and is
read into the verse rather than read out of it. On the other hand, it does explicitly
mention discipline and disputes within the community (Matt. 18:15 ff.), binding
and loosing (Matt. 18:18; — Bind; — Open, art. k/eis, NT 3), and the promise:
“if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by
my Father in heaven” (Matt. 18:19). The maranatha might conceivably be used in
such a situation to confirm such an agreement, especially in view of the presence
897
PRESENT
promised in v. 20. The fact that maranatha is not mentioned in Matt. may itself
be an indication of its origin in the early church, whereas Matt. 18:15—20 is
presented as having its location in the ministry of Jesus. In any case, if there is an
affinity here, it confirms the suggestion that the original context of maranatha
concerns the coming of the Lord in judgment to redress wrong and establish right.
It may be noted that the following verses in Matt. concern Jesus’ answer to the
question on forgiving up to seven times, followed by the parable of the two debtors
(Matt. 18:21-35). C. Brown
; Tapovoia (parousia), presence, appearing, coming,
| Ta povaia | nce i
advent; 2d pei (pareimi), be present, have come.
CL pareimi covers both the present tense idea of “‘being there’ and the perfect idea
of “Shaving come’. parousia means, on the one hand, presence (with certain
effects following) or (in a more neutral sense) property, fortune, income, military
strength; and, on the other hand, it means arrival, someone’s coming in order to
ke present. Technically the noun is used for the arrival of a ruler a king, emperor,
ruler, or even troops from the Ptolemaic period to the 2nd century A.D. Special
payments in kind and taxes were exacted to defray the costs. In Greece a new era
was reckoned from the parousia of Hadrian, and special advent coins were struck
in various places to commemorate the parousia of an emperor. The corresponding
Lat. term is adventus. The cities of Corinth and Patras struck advent coins com-,
memorating the visit of Nero in whose reign Paul wrote to Corinth. They bear the
inscriptions Adventus Aug(usti) Cor(inthi) and Adventus Augusti (cf. A. Deissmann
Light from the Ancient East, 19117, 372 ff.). From this it is an easy step to speak of an
appearing of the gods on men’s behalf (cf. Corp. Herm. 1, 22: “‘my parousia will
prove a help to them’’; this being in keeping with the ideas of the Hellenistic
mystery religions). Such a parousia is not thought of merely as future, but is ex-
perienced as a reality in the present. An inscription at Tegea combines the term with
the deification of the emperor: “in the year 69 of the first parousia of the god
Hadrian in Hellas” (c. A.D. 193; cf. Deissmann, op. cit., 377). This was approxi-
mately at the time when Christians were beginning to speak explicitly of the first
parousia of Christ, as distinct from the second (cf. Justin, Dial. 14 and 52). For
further instances see A. Oepke, TDNT V 859 ff.
ort The Greek translations of the OT use the vb. pareimi for seven different Heb.
words, all of which mean to come, including bd’, the most common word for
come (Num. 22:20; 1 Sam. 9:6; 2 Sam. 5:23; 13:35;1 Chr. 14:14; Joel 2:1; Isa.
30:13; Lam. 4:18). The noun parousia occurs in Neh. 2:6 y./. (without Heb.
equivalent); Jud. 10:18; 2 Macc. 8:12; 15:21; 3 Macc. 3:17. ‘““The absence of the
word from the LXX in the books originally written in Heb. may be explaine? by
the fact that the Semite speaks more concretely” (A. Oepke, TDNT V 859). Never-
theless, the idea is there, for from the earliest times the OT speaks of the coming of
God: God manifests himself in victory (Jdg. 5:4); he comes as king of the world
(Exod. 15:18; Ps. 24:7 ff.; 95:3 f.), in dreams (Gen. 20:3), in his Spirit (Num. 24:2),
with his hand (1 Ki. 18:46), in his word (2 Sam. 7:4) and at the end of the days
898
PRESENT
(Isa. 2:2 and passim; — hémera). There are references to the coming of the anointed
(Gen. 49:10?; Zech. 9:9f.). In the Qumran texts, the appearance of various
messiahs is predicted (1QS 9:10 f.). Important for the NT’s view is the expectation
of God in the Jewish apocalyptic texts (which, however, may have been worked
over by Christian hands): “‘A king shall arise out of Judah and shall establish a
new priesthood for all the Gentiles after the fashion of the Gentiles. And his
appearing is greatly desired as a prophet of the Most High, of the seed of Abraham
our father’’ (Test.Lev. 8:14 f.); ““And by men of another race shall my kingdom be
brought to an end, until the salvation of Israel shall come, [until the appearing of
the God of righteousness] that Jacob may rest in peace’”’ (Test.Jud. 22:2). There
are also references to the coming of messiah: “‘when the Righteous One shall appear
before the eyes of the righteous” (Eth.Enoch 38: 2); ““He will judge the secret things”’
(Eth.Enoch 49:4). By parousia Josephus means the presence of God in the Shekinah
(Ant. 3, 8 and 202; 9, 55; 18, 284) which is revealed to his people and even to the
pagan governor, Petronius. Oepke suggests that Josephus’s rejection of apocalyptic
was rabbinic and politically opportunist (I DNT V 864 f.). The prophecies of Dan.
were applied by him in ways which avoided giving offence to the Romans (cf. Ant.
10, 209 f., 267 and 276; 12, 322; War 6, 313). Philo used pareimi frequently in a
non-eschatological sense but not parousia. Hellenistic influences have all but
obliterated a coming of Yahweh or the messiah. Only in Praem. 16, 91-97 does
he refer to the coming man (cf. Num. 24:7) who will bring universal peace, and
tame man and beast (TDNT V 864).
NT |. (a) Paul uses the vb. pareimi with the meaning of to be present, though in 1
and 2 Cor. the vb. occurs only in the part. form paron. The apostle distinguishes
his personal, bodily absence (apdén to sdmati) from his presence in spirit (par6én de
to pneumati) (1 Cor. 5:3); the word also refers to his presence in Corinth (2 Cor.
10:2, 11; 11:9; 13:2, 10) and among the Galatians (Gal. 4:18, 20). The same
meaning is found in Jn. 11:28; Rev. 17:8. Lk. uses the vb. in the perfect sense
(to have come), so a similar interpretation is conceivable also in the case of Acts
10:33; 24:19. In Col. 1:6 parestin is used without a personal subject: the gospel
which has come to you. Similarly in Jn. 7:6 the time has not yet come (— Time,
art. kairos). The phrase pros to paron (Heb. 12:11) means for the moment, for the
present (cf. Arndt, 629), and the vb. also occurs in its sense of to be available, to be
at hand (Heb. 13:5; 2 Pet. 1:9, 12).
(b) The noun parousia denotes generally presence and arrival. Paul, however, is
the only NT writer to use it in this way: he rejoices over the presence of Stephanas
(1 Cor. 16:17); he is comforted by God through the arrival of Titus (2 Cor. 7:6 f.);
he speaks of his coming to Philippi (Phil. 1:26; 2:12) and has to suffer the reproach
of being weighty and strong in his letters, but weak and insignificant in his personal
presence and speech (2 Cor. 10:10). (See on this R. W. Funk, ““The Apostolic
Parousia: Form and Significance”, in W. Rv Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R.
Niebuhr, eds., Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John
Knox, 1967, 249-68; cf. also (a) above.)
2. In its special NT sense, parousia is intimately bound up with the development
of NT eschatology. Jesus proclaimed the — kingdom of God as imminent and the
parousia as having a decisive effect upon the present in that men are to live now in
899
PRESENT
the light of this coming event (cf. e.g. Mk. 3:27; Lk. 17:23 f.). Although the pre-
sent and the future are viewed as a chronological succession, the future affects the
present, not in the sense of being already realized and anticipated in the present,
but in the sense that man makes his decisions as one who must give account at the
imminent appearing of the kingdom of God. With Jesus’ —> death and — resur-
rection (or exaltation) the eschatological perspective is modified. The idea of the
parousia now becomes bound up with the church’s expectation of Christ’s appear-
ing at the end of the age (— Son of God, art. hyios tou anthropou). Many scholars
hold that at first the coming events were still regarded as imminent (cf. Paul), but
later, as time went by without the parousia taking place it moved further and further
into the future as far as the church was concerned, and eventually ran the risk of
being abandoned altogether as an article of faith. Where the presence of Christ
and the present experience of salvation are stressed (e.g. Gal. 2:20), the parousia
may be relativized to some degree: its blessings are already being experienced here
and now (cf. e.g. Jn. 6:39 ff.; 11:24, 26). Certainly, therefore, the delay of the
parousia \ed to difficulties, but they were not so grave as to split the church asunder,
simply because her confidence in Christ was even greater than her longing for his
parousia, which, all were agreed, would come suddenly (cf. 1 Thess. 5:1 ff.; Lk.
17:23 f.). (For a survey of critical views see below.)
In the NT the term parousia is not frequent. It occurs 24 times, of which 14 are in
Paul: Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. 15:23; 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:6 f.; 10:10; Phil. 1:26;
2:12; | Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8 f.; Jas. 5:7 f.; 2 Pet. 1:16;
3:4, 12; 1 Jn. 2:28. Clearly some of these references refer to the apostle’s parousia
(see above | (a), (b)). Moreover, other terms are used to describe the parousia of
Christ (— hémera; — Revelation, art. epiphaneia). ““The term is Hellenistic. In
essential content, however, it derives from the OT, Judaism, and primitive Christian
thinking” (A. Oepke, TDNT V 866). It thus presupposes the Hellenizing of Jewish
Christianity. Although from a religio-historical point of view the NT’s parousia
doctrine belongs to the general realm of apocalyptic, the NT is singularly lacking
in the usual apocalyptic embellishments. This is because its emphasis falls upon
the expected coming of Christ himself. Only Rev. belongs to the genre of apocalyp-
tic books, though apocalyptic imagery was used by Jesus and Paul. The earliest NT
passage which speaks of the parousia is the word of the Lord quoted by Paul in 1
Thess. 4:15: “‘For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are
alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord [eis tén parousian tou kyriou], shall
not precede those who have fallen asleep’’. The reference to “‘the word of the Lord’”’
may be (i) an allusion to Matt. 24:30 f.; Gi) a quotation from an unknown saying
now lost; (ii) a reference to a private revelation (cf. 2 Cor. 12:1 ff.; Gal. 1:12;
Eph. 3:3; Acts 21:10 ff.); or (av) a statement of what Paul believes to be in accord
with the mind of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 2:16; 7:10, 12) (A. L. Moore, J and 2 Thessa-
lonians, New Century Bible, 1969, 69). Here — resurrection and parousia are closely
intertwined, for when the latter occurs no disadvantage will be suffered by those
who have fallen asleep, and no advantage enjoyed by the living. 1 Cor. 15:23 takes
up the same thought, emphasizing the fact that at that decisive moment Christ is
Lord over all: ‘““But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming
[en té parousia autou| those who belong to Christ.” Paul regularly uses the prep. en
before parousia when the noun occurs in its strictly theological sense; eis is found
900
PRESENT
only in 1 Thess. 4:15. The parousia will certainly involve different categories of
people, but it does not follow that the apostle has in mind a double resurrection,
an intervening millennial kingdom, or a systematic chronological sequence of
eschatological events (cf. W. G. Kimmel, Promise and Fulfilment, The Eschatologi-
cal Message of Jesus, SBT 23, 19617, 88-94; —-- Number, art. chilias). Paul breaks
with traditional apocalyptic ideas by insisting that eschatology is already being
worked out: believers are to live not in sadness but in hope (1 Thess. 4:13; 5:23).
And although separated from the Thessalonian church through the efforts of —
Satan, Paul can still describe this church as his “‘hope’’, ‘‘joy” and crown of boasting
“before our Lord Jesus at his coming” (1 Thess. 2:18, 19). 2 Thess. clearly has
another situation in view. There is patent tension between the presence of Christ
experienced here and now and the (Jewish-apocalyptic) parousia at some future
date (2 Thess. 2:2). Evidently some claimed that “the day of the Lord has come”’,
purporting to have relations or communications from Paul to this effect (2 Thess.
2:2). Some made it an excuse for idleness to which Paul replied: ““For even when
we were with you, we gave you this command: If anyone will not work, let him
not eat’ (2 Thess. 3:10). The epistle attacks those who claimed present experience
of events which in reality were still future. This leads Paul to give a vehement
warning of Satan and the parousia of the lawless one which will take place before
the parousia of Christ. ““For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he
who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one
will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and
destroy him by his appearing and his coming [té epiphaneia tés parousias autou]
The coming [parousia] of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all
power and with pretended signs and wonders” (2 Thess. 2:7 ff.; — Antichrist;
— Satan; — Miracle; Sign).
3. The delay in Christ’s appearing led men to question whether that day would
in fact ever come. In this situation Jas. 5:7 f. calls for patience: ‘““Be patient [makro-
thymésate]|, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord (heds tés parousias
tou kyriou]. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being
patient over it until it receives the early and the late rain. Youalso be patient [makro-
thymésate]. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord 1s at hand [hoti hé
parousia tou kyriou éngiken]” (— Patience, art. makrothymia). In 2 Pet. 1:16 and
3:4 ff. believers are urged to go on especting the parousia despite the fact that so
far nothing has happened. Matt. presents a dialectical tension. On the one hand,
Jesus is present whenever his church assembles (Matt. 18:20), and with his people
to the end of the age as they spread the gospel (28:20). On the other hand, the
coming of the > Son of man is still future (24:39), its date being unknown to any
man (v. 36); it will occur suddenly and at a time when men are living entirely for
the present (vv. 27, 37 f.). These two elements are so starkly juxtaposed in | Jn.
2:28 that some have attempted to solve the difficulty in literary-critical fashion, by
assigning the present and the future elements to two different strata.
G. Braumann
The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT
The purpose of this note is to draw attention to various areas of discussion in view
901
PRESENT
of the eschatological programmes set out in certain NT passages and the place of
the parousia in them, whether or not the Gk. word parousia is actually used.
1. Trends in NT Criticism. (a) Consistent Eschatology. The term consistent
eschatology is applied to the idea that Jesus expected the establishment of the
kingdom of God in his own lifetime, brought about by his own ministry. The
corollary of this thesis is that the idea of a second coming is the invention of the
primitive church. In The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its
Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, (1910) 19548, Albert Schweitzer credited H. S.
Reimarus (1694—1768) with being the initiator of the modern quest of the historical
Jesus. (This latter point was inaccurate, as many of Reimarus’s ideas were indebted
to the English Deists, but this lies outside our present concern.) In a series of articles
published anonymously and posthumously by G. E. Lessing as Fragments of an
Unknown Author Reimarus had argued that Jesus expected that his own preaching
would bring about the kingdom of God as a quasi-political reality. But Jesus’ hopes
failed to find the appropriate response and he was executed. The disciples, however,
after having overcome their original shock, put out the story that Jesus had risen
from the dead and that his teaching actually referred to a second coming, when the
kingdom would be finally established. Their preaching won acceptance, and in the
meantime no one has noticed that the parousia has failed to materialize. Neverthe-
less, Christianity is built upon a gigantic fraud (cf. H. S. Reimarus, The Goal of
Jesus and his Disciples, tr. G. W. Buchanan, 1970; and Fragments, ed. C. H. Talbert
and tr. R. S. Fraser, 1971). Schweitzer himself hailed Reimarus’s work as ‘‘perhaps
the most splendid achievement in the whole course of the historical investigation
of the life of Jesus, for he was the first to grasp the fact that the world of thought
in which Jesus moved was essentially eschatological’”’ (op. cit., 23). Indeed, in view
of its neglect of eschatology the whole movement of theology down to Johannes
Weiss’s Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (1892; ET ed. R. H. Hiers and
D. L. Holland, 1971) appeared to Schweitzer to be retrograde. For in the meantime
the main emphasis of liberal Protestant theology had been on Jesus as a teacher of
timeless moral truths, divorced from their historical background.
Schweitzer’s own position was not dissimilar to that of Reimarus (in addition to
the final chapter of The Quest of the Historical Jesus see also The Mystery of the
Kingdom of God [1910] ET 1914; Paul and his Interpreters: A Critical History, 1912;
The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 1931; and The Kingdom of God and Primitive
Christianity, 1968). Jesus believed himself to be the messiah-designate and regarded
John the Baptist as Elijah preparing men for him and the kingdom. The mission
of the twelve was a last effort to bring about the kingdom. When this failed to
materialize Jesus saw that only through his own affliction would the kingdom dawn.
The entry into Jerusalem was a “‘funeral march to victory’’, and Jesus died expect-
ing the dawning of the kingdom and his own coming as messiah. But here Jesus
proved to be wrong, though this did not prevent the rise of false expectations. Paul
took over the idea, transforming it into a doctrine of overlapping aeons in which
the present world order would continue, though its relevance would be lost to
those who are “‘in Christ”. NT ethics are interim ethics. As even the second parousia
failed to materialize the eschatological aspect of Christianity was Hellenized and
receded into the background. It may be noted in all this that, for all Schweitzer’s
stress on the importance of eschatology for understanding the NT, it does not
902
PRESENT
play any significant part in in his own beliefs and teaching, at any rate in the NT
sense. For Schweitzer himself reverence for life became the dominant theme.
Schweitzer’s thesis has been taken up by F. Buri in Die Bedeutung der neutesta-
mentlichen Eschatologie fur die neuere protestantische Theologie, 1934, who sought
to interpret eschatology existentially. For us the ultimate concern must not be the
programme of future world events but the will for life fulfilment in the present. In
The Formation of Christian Dogma, 1957, Martin Werner also built upon the founda-
tions laid by Schweitzer. Whereas Jesus’ outlook was essentially that of late Jewish
apocalyptic, which in turn affected that of Paul and the other apostles, the delay
of the parousia created a great crisis for the church. This led to the falling away of
many and the rise of heretics, and ultimately to the abandonment of the old
eschatological understanding of the gospel. The vacuum was filled in Christian
belief by its restatement in terms of Jesus’ person and work which were understood
in non-eschatological categories.
Schweitzer’s position has been sharply criticized on the grounds of defective
methodology and interpretation (cf. A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testa-
ment, Supplements to NovT 13, 1966, 38-48). From the standpoint of methodology
it raises the questions (i) whether the criterion Schweitzer used to ascertain the
teaching of Jesus is necessary; (11) whether his particular understanding of escha-
tology is justified in view of the complexity of thought in contemporary Judaism;
and (iii) whether such a criterion can allow the possibility of any sui generis elements
in the life and work of Jesus. Although Schweitzer was right in pointing out that
eschatology had been a neglected factor in much previous study of the Gospels,
his own interpretation of the eschatology of Jesus was not free from the charge of
arbitrariness. As a matter of fact, the work of the messiah is never represented in
apocalyptic writings as forcing in the kingdom. Moreover, the idea of a secret life of
humiliation prior to exaltation is generally lacking (cf. Moore, op. cit., 41). The
various elements in the life of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, cannot be subsumed
under the category of apocalyptic eschatology as the single key to the whole.
Schweitzer and Werner claim that Paul understood Jesus’ death and resurrection
as the initiation of the end of the world, and even that he saw Jesus’ resurrection as
the literal beginning of the general resurrection. Moore counters this by suggesting
that, while Paul regarded the speedy return of Christ a real possibility, he nowhere
maintained it as certain or necessary either in his early or later epistles (op. cit., 46;
cf. 108 ff. where he discusses | Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess. 1:5-12; 2:1-15; 1 Cor. 7;
and 15; 2 Cor. 5:1-10; Rom. 13; and 15:19, 23; Phil. 3:20; 4:5). Consistent
eschatology posits that Christianity is founded upon a mistaken idea which was not
about some minor detail but about the central issue of the primitive church’s
witness. But the mistaken expectation of apocalyptic as Schweitzer understood it
‘“‘cannot do justice to the soteriological understanding of Jesus’ life and death which
we find throughout the New Testament” (Moore, op. cit., 48).
(b) The Little Apocalypse Theory. A view which is diametrically opposed to that
of Schweitzer is that propounded by T. Colani in Jésus-Christ et les Croyances
Messianiques de son Temps, 1864, which is known as the Little Apocalypse theory.
Colani argued that there was no connection at all between the teaching of Jesus
and Jewish messianism. The Jewish messiah had always been a purely temporal
figure and Jewish hopes had always been temporal and political. Jesus did not
903
PRESENT
proclaim either an eschatological kingdom or himself as the awaited messiah. He
was a simple, humble teacher for whom the kingdom was a present reality identical
with his teaching and life-style. Mk. 13:5-31 is a Jewish Christian interpolation
representing views which were remote from Jesus’ own position. The real answer
to the disciples’ question about the destruction of the temple (v. 4) 1s actually
given in v. 32 (“But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels
in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’). The intervening material, the
Little Apocalypse, is a tract written at a time of persecution before the fall of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It is this teaching which underlies the parallels in Matt. 24
and Lk. 17 and 21. For discussion of Colani and his influence see G. R. Beasley-
Murray, Jesus and the Future: An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological
Discourse, Mark 13, with Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory, 1954; cf.
also the same writer’s A Commentary on Mark 13, 1957. For surveys of the history
of interpretation of the kingdom see G. Lundstrém, The Kingdom of God in the
Teaching of Jesus: A History of Interpretation from the Last Decades of the Nine-
teenth Century to the Present Day, 1963; and N. Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the
Teaching of Jesus, 1963.
Colani’s successors included C. Weizsacker, W. Weiffenbach, G. C. B. Pinjer,
H. H. Wendt, W. Baldensperger and E. Wending. The type of approach which
Colani represented was shared by many who were not directly indebted to him.
Whereas Colani saw a single document behind the Little Apocalypse others thought
of it more in terms of a tradition. The essential feature was alien eschatological
teaching incorporated into that of Jesus and in this sense the position was adopted
in some form or other by B. H. Streeter, R. H. Charles, E. Meyer, F. Hauck, R.
Bultmann and G. H6lscher. Colani himself divided the Apocalypse into three
sections: the beginning of the birth pangs in the form of false prophets, wars and
persecutions (Mk. 13:5-—13); the terrible distress that will precede the end (Mk.
13:14-23); and the end (telos) of events (Mk. 13:24-31). Whilst Colani attributed
the whole discourse ‘to extraneous sources, others have seen some elements of
Christian exhortation (e.g. vv. 9-13, 21 ff., 28 ff.) which could go back to Jesus.
(c) Realized Eschatology. The leading exponent of realized eschatology is C. H.
Dodd who argued his position in a number of works including The Parables of the
Kingdom, 19362; The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 1936; History and
the Gospel, 1938; The Coming of Christ, 1952; The Interpretation of the Fourth
Gospel, 1953; Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 1963; The Founder of
Christianity, 1970; and various articles reprinted in New Testament Studies, 1953,
and More New Testament Studies, 1968. (For discussion see F. F. Bruce, ““C. H.
Dodd’’, in P. E. Hughes, ed., Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology, 1966,
19692, 239-69; N. Q. Hamilton, “C. H. Dodd’s Realised Eschatology” in The
Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, SJT Occasional Papers 6, 1957, 53-70;
J. A. T. Robinson, ““Theologians of our Time: xl. C. H. Dodd”’, ExpT 75, 1963-64,
100 ff., reprinted in A. W. and E. Hastings, eds., Theologians of Our Time, 1966,
40-46; and A. L. Moore, op. cit., 49-66.) Dodd used the phrase “‘realized escha-
tology’ to denote the fact that the burden of Jesus’ preaching especially in the
parables was that the kingdom of God had come (The Parables of the Kingdom,
198, cf. 44). This demands a response. The traditional Jewish eschatological
scheme is dislocated by the advent of Jesus: ““The eschaton has moved from the
904
PRESENT
future to the present, from the sphere of expectation into that of realized experi-
ence”’ (op. cit., 50). Eschatology means no longer the last point in time; it refers
rather to ‘“‘the absolute order’’ (op. cit., 107). The eschatological elements in the
teaching of Jesus are thus to be interpreted in this sense. However, the early church
misinterpreted a good deal along the lines of Jewish literalism (The Apostolic
Preaching, 80 ff., 92; cf. 64 ff.). Thus, whereas Jesus spoke of the one single event
of the coming of the Son of man, “they made a distinction between two events,
one past, His resurrection from the dead, and one future, His coming on the clouds”’
(op. cit., 101). Paul himself, however, underwent a considerable spiritual and
psychological development in which the initial apocalyptic dualism of 1 and 2
Thess. and | Cor. 15 was transcended. Thereafter there was a growing emphasis
on eternal life here and now in communion with Christ, and the earlier world-
denial gave place to a more positive evaluation of political institutions (Rom. 13),
the goodness of man (Rom. 2:14 f.) and the family (Col. 3:18 f.; Eph. 5:21—33)
(New Testament Studies, 80 ff., 109-118). The Fourth Gospel represents the ulti-
mate stage of this development, in which popular apocalyptic eschatology is
replaced and thus we come back to the original intentions of Jesus (The Interpreta-
tion of the Fourth Gospel, 395, 406).
Another writer who finds the idea of a parousia inimical to the original teaching
of Jesus is T. F. Glasson in The Second Advent: The Origin of the New Testament
Doctrine, (1945) 1947. He claims that the idea is absent from the OT which was
the most important source of Jesus’ teaching and from apocalyptic which is largely
concerned with an earthly king. But the idea arose because of unfulfilled prophecies
and the Antichrist legend was imported into Christianity giving rise to imminent
expectation and millenarianism. Another viewpoint 1s that of J. A. T. Robinson in
In the End God .. ., (1950) 19682; ‘““The Most Primitive Christology of All?’’, JTS
New Series 7, 1956, 177-89; reprinted in Twelve New Testament Studies, SBT 34,
1962, 139-53; and Jesus and His Coming: The Emergence of a Doctrine, 1957. Jesus
himself did not expect to return in glory. Rather he taught that God was performing
a decisive act which was stated in terms of vindication and visitation, neither of
which involve a parousia. The temporal chronological element was introduced
through a confusion of two types of christological teaching, one of which affirmed
that Christ has come and the other that he will come. These were never fully
reconciled. However, the Fourth Gospel does achieve a synthesis which gives the
parousia its proper meaning as the “mutual indwelling of Jesus and the disciples
in love’? (Jesus and His Coming, 178).
Dodd’s method has been criticized in respect of his handling of the parables, in
that he selects those passages which stress the decisive moment in the present as
representing the true meaning of the parables and the authentic teaching of Jesus,
and discounts other teaching as secondary additions. Similarly he posits a Sitz
im Leben for the parables in the light of what he conceives to be their clear meaning
(cf. especially op. cit., 111-53), a procedure which requires their respective life
settings to have been rapidly forgotten in their transmission and commitment to
writing. Glasson’s claim that Jesus made no use of apocalyptic (op. cit., 63 ff.)
cannot be sustained, and few scholars would deny that terms like the Son of man
are derived at least in part from Dan. or Enoch. The more moderate representatives
of realized eschatology admit the presence of apocalyptic elements in the teaching
905
PRESENT
of Jesus, but are obliged to say that it applies only to the form and not to the
meaning. Moore sees in realized eschatology an implicit form of demythologizing
which has a built-in apologetic motif (op. cit., 56 ff.). It presents the eschatological
expectations of the NT as resting upon a mistake, but shifts the onus for this from
Jesus to the early church in the interests of rescuing Jesus from the charge of being
a misguided, apocalyptic enthusiast.
Moore concludes his review of realized eschatology by pointing out that this
school of thought “rightly recognizes that the New Testament emphatically de-
clares that the Kingdom of God has come and is not ‘wholly futurist’. However,
this ‘realization’ 1s connected in the New Testament directly with the person and
work of Christ and therefore with the lowliness and hiddenness characteristic of
his ministry. It therefore carries the promise of future fulfilment, indeed demands
future fulfilment” (op. cit., 63). It is perhaps not without some significance that Dodd
himself somewhat modified his position by agreeing that, instead of speaking about
“realized eschatology’’, it would be more appropriate to speak of “‘an eschatology
that is in process of realization” (cf. the Ger. of J. Jeremias, “‘eine sich realisierende
Eschatologie’’, noted in The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 447; and J. Jeremias
The Parables of Jesus, 19637, 230; cf. also G. Florovsky’s phrase “‘inaugurated
eschatology” noted by Dodd, ad loc.).
(d) Bultmann and Demythologizing. Rudolf Bultmann’s programme of demy-
thologizing the NT kerygma and restating it in existential terms, coupled with his
radical form criticism, also entails a form of realized eschatology. In his epoch-
making essay of 1941 on “New Testament and Mythology’ Bultmann claimed
that the NT not only contained myths, but that its thought-forms were essentially
mythological, and therefore it should be demythologized in order to let the gospel
speak to man today (for text and discussions see H.-W. Bartsch, ed., Kerygma and
and Myth: A Theological Debate, I-I] combined volume containing an enlarged
bibliography, 1972; cf. also R. Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1960; A. L.
Moore, op. cit., 67-79; N. Q. Hamilton, op. cit., 71-82; and C. Brown, ed., History,
Criticism and Faith, 1976; — Myth). The myths, which derive from Jewish apo-
calyptic and gnosticism and belong to an obsolete pre-scientific world view, must
be demythologized, not indeed to remove all offence but to allow the true offence
of the gospel to confront men today. This alone will give men the possibility of
understanding themselves and freeing them from the cares of material existence.
In place of an apocalyptic programme of future external events, Bultmann prefers
to say that every instant is eschatological, or rather that “‘every instant has the
possibility of being an eschatological instant and in Christian faith this possibility
is realised” (History and Eschatology: The Presence of Eternity, Gifford Lectures
for 1955, 1957, 154). This is the meaning of eternity breaking into time, and of God
breaking into history. ‘“‘The meaning of history always lies in the present, and when
the present is conceived as the eschatological present by Christian faith the meaning
of history is realised.... In every moment slumbers the possibility of being the
eschatological moment. You must awaken it” (ibid., 155). Alongside this we may
put the statement: ‘The New Testament understanding of the history of Jesus as
eschatological event is not rightly conceived either in the conception of Jesus as
the centre of history, or in sacramentalism. Both are solutions of the embarrassment
into which the Christian community was brought by the non-appearance of the
906
PRESENT
Parousia. The true solution of the problem lies in the thought of Paul and John,
namely, as the idea that Christ is the ever present, or ever-becoming event (i.e. the
eschatological event): the ‘now’ gets its eschatological character by the encounter
with Christ or with the Word which proclaims Him, because in this encounter
with Him the world and its history comes to its end and the believer becomes free
from the world in becoming a new creature’ (“History and Eschatology in the
New Testament’, NTS 1, 1954-55, 15).
An adequate critique of Bultmann’s position would take us far beyond the scope
of the present survey and would involve an appraisal of the complex questions of —
myth, language and hermeneutics (— Explain). It would also require a philoso-
phical discussion of the nature of objectivity in relation to the concept of God, and
an examination of the methods and sceptical results of Bultmann’s History of the
Synoptic Tradition, 1968? which gives his critical evaluation of the picture of Jesus
presented by the Gospels. It must suffice here to pose the questions: What did
Jesus himself say? How are we to interpret the apocalyptic language of the NT?
How did the early church understand — time?
(e) Cullmann and Salvation History. Oscar Cullmann is a NT scholar whose
views often stand in direct contradiction to Bultmann’s. Of direct bearing on the
question of the parousia are his Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception
of Time and History, 1951; ““The Return of Christ’, in The Early Church, 1956,
141-62; The Christology of the New Testament, 1959; and Salvation in History,
1967 (for further discussion and bibliography see D. H. Wallace, ‘Oscar Cull-
mann’’, in P. E. Hughes, ed., op. cit., 163-202; and J. J. Vincent, “Oscar Cull-
mann’’, in A. W. Hastings and E. Hastings, op. cit., 112-22). For Cullmann the
“Christ event” is the mid-point (qualitatively speaking) in the ages of history.
Eschatology embraces all the saving events beginning with the incarnation and
concluding with the parousia. He illustrates this with the D-Day and V-Day
terminology of the Second World War: “‘the decisive battle has already been
won. But the war continues until a certain, though not as yet definite, Victory
Day when the weapons will at last be still. The decisive battle would be Christ’s
death and resurrection, and Victory Day his parousia’’ (Salvation in History, 44).
The church exists in the tension between these two historical events.
For his restatement of what is essentially a traditional understanding of the NT
Cullmann has been attacked by members of the Bultmann school. Thus E. Fuchs
adopted an existential approach to time in his Studies of the Historical Jesus, SBT
42, 1964, and P. Vielhauer has made the author of Acts responsible for the origin
of the ‘‘early Catholic” idea of salvation history (‘Zum ‘Paulinismus’ der Apostel-
gechichte”’, EvT 10, 1950-51, 1-15; ET ‘‘On the ‘Paulinism’ of Acts”, in L. E.
Keck and J. L. Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts, 1968, 33-50). What Cullmann
regarded as the essence of the NT Hans Conzelmann claimed to be the special
creation of Luke in The Theology of St Luke, 1960 (the original German title Die
Mitte der Zeit, the mid-point of time, draws attention to the emphasis on Lk.’s con-
ception of time). Conzelmann claimed that with his salvation history Lk. effectively
abandoned the offence of the unfulfilled parousia. He achieved this by a scheme of
periods which shifts the emphasis into the past and present, and substitutes the
activity of the Holy Spirit for the kingdom to come. Whereas Cullmann himself
sees Conzelmann’s work as to some extent complementing his own (ibid., 46),
907
PRESENT
Conzelmann sees it as the antithesis. For it involves the abandonment of Jesus’
eschatology in favour of an existential one, comparable with that of Bultmann. In
Das Problem der Parusieverzégerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der
Apostelgeschichte, BZNW 22, (1957) 19602, E. Grasser took this even further,
arguing that Lk. was not as original in this as might appear. For the same process
can be detected not only in the Synoptic Gospels but also in the sources that they
used.
To all this Cullmann replies that the concept of salvation history begins with
Jesus himself. He maintains that it is arbitrary to classify as genuine only those
sayings which have to do with present salvation, and reject those which have to do
with future salvation (Salvation in History, 191). His detailed examination of teach-
ing in the Gospels leads to the statement: ““We conclude that in Jesus’ preaching the
present which extends beyond his death is already the end. But this does not in any
way justify asserting that Jesus is the end of salvation history. The end time is, on the
contrary, understood as belonging completely to salvation history, since each of its
periods, short as they may be, has its own significance and is distinguished from others”
(op. cit., 230). Cullmann allows that there are differences among the various books
of the NT on the subject of the nearness of the end, but none over the tensions
between the “‘already”’ and the “not yet’’. ‘“‘The inmost essence of the New Testament
messages is lost, not with the abandonment of the idea of a near end, but with the
abandonment of salvation history” (op. cit., 247).
(f) The Parousia in Recent Systematic Theology. A detailed examination of the
parousia in systematic theology lies outside the scope of this volume. But attention
may be drawn to the writings of Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jiirgen Moltmann.
To some extent Pannenberg represents a reaction to the theologies of the Word
(whether that of Barth or of Bultmann) and to the idea of salvation history (cf.
Jesus — God and Man, 1968; Basic Questions in Theology, I-III, 1970-73; W. Pan-
nenberg, ed., Revelation as History, 1969; J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb, eds.,
Theology as History, New Frontiers in Theology III, 1967, including Pannenberg’s
“Focal Essay: The Revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth’’, 101-33; cf. also
A. D. Galloway, Wolfhart Pannenberg, 1973; and E. F. Tupper, The Theology of
Wolfhart Pannenberg, 1974). Whereas Barth stresses revelation through the Word of
God, Jesus Christ, through the Scriptures and Bultmann stresses existential illu-
mination through demythologized kerygma, Pannenberg sees history as the revela-
tion of God. But it is not the narrow ribbon of salvation history that is the sole
revelation; rather it is universal history.to which the event of Jesus Christ provides
the key. ‘“‘The historical event of revelation cannot be thought of in an outward
way as revealing the essence of God. It is not so much the course of history as it is
the end of history that is at one with the essence of God. But insofar as the end
presupposes the course of history, because it is the perfection of it, then also the
course of history belongs in essence to the revelation of God, for history receives
its unity from its goal” (Revelation as History, 133). The resurrection of Jesus has
the character of a proleptic revelation of this final goal. ““Now the history of the
whole is only visible when one stands at its end. Until then, the future always
remains as something beyond calculation. And, only in the sense that the perfection
of history has already been inaugurated in Jesus Christ is God finally and fully
revealed in the fate of Jesus. With the resurrection of Jesus, the end of history has
908
PRESENT
already occurred, although it does not strike us in this way. It is through the resur-
rection that the God of Israel has substantiated his deity in an ultimate way and is
now manifest as the God of all men’”’ (op. cit., 142). The resurrection, therefore,
posits the parousia. “The ultimate divine confirmation of Jesus will take place
only in the occurrence of his return. Only then will the revelation of God in Jesus
become manifest in its ultimate, irresistible glory. When we speak today of God’s
revelation in Jesus and of his exaltation accomplished in the resurrection from the
dead, our statements always contain a proleptic element. The fulfilment, which had
begun for the disciples, which was almost in their grasp, in the appearances of the
resurrected Lord, has become promise once again for us’? (Jesus — God and Man,
108).
Jirgen Moltmann has also sought to redress the inadequate eschatological
perspectives of twentieth-century theology (cf. Theology of Hope: On the Ground
and Implications of a Christian Theology, 1967; Hope and Planning, 1971; Theology
and Joy, 1973; The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and
Criticism of Christian Theology, 1974; see also E. H. Cousins, ed., Hope and the
Future of Man, 1973; M. D. Meeks, Origins of the Theology of Hope, 1974; and
E. F. Tupper, op. cit., 257-61 for a brief comparison with Pannenberg). Moltmann
claims that parousia does not mean the return of someone but “imminent arrival’’.
It can also mean presence, in the sense of an awaited presence. ‘“‘The parousia of
Christ is a different thing from a reality that is experienced now and given now.
As compared with what can now be experienced, it brings something new. Yet it is
not for that reason totally separate from the reality which we can now experience
and have now to live in, but, as the future that is really outstanding, it works upon
the present by waking hopes and establishing resistance. The eschaton of the
parousia of Christ, as a result of its eschatological promise, causes the present that
can be experienced at any given moment to become historic by breaking away
from the past and breaking out towards the things that are to come.... The
Christian hope expects from the future of Christ not only unveiling, but also final
fulfilment. The latter is to bring the redeeming of the promise which the cross and
resurrection of Christ contains for his own and for the world” (Theology of Hope,
227 f.). Thus for Pannenberg and for Moltmann, however they understand its
particularities, the parousia is not the misconceived application of apocalyptic
ideas to a non-eschatological Jesus. It is implicit in Christ and in the structure of
Christian hope for the world.
2. The Parousia in the Theology of the New Testament Writings. (a) Mk. 13 and
the Synoptic Gospels. G. R. Beasley-Murray’s Jesus and the Future reviews the
debate on Mk. 13 to the time of publication in 1954. For discussion since then see
K. Grayston, ““The Study of Mark XIII’, B/RL 56, 1973-74, 371-87; and D.
Wenham, “‘Recent Study of Mark 13”, TSF Bulletin 71, 1975, 8-15, and 72, 1975, 1-9.
Beasley-Murray reviews six types of approach to the vindication of the discourse
in Mk. 13. (4) One way of doing this is to take the prophecy concerning Jerusalem as
a prefiguration of the end (op. cit., 114 f.). This view was taken by J. Neander in
The Life of Jesus Christ in its Historical Connection and Historical Development,
(1837; ET from 4th ed. 1853). Similarly A. Plummer saw the day of judgment
symbolized in the judgment on the guilty city (Commentary on the Gospel according
to St. Matthew, 1909, 328; cf. N. Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of
909
PRESENT
Luke, NLC, 1950, 523, 533). Beasley-Murray comments: “‘This view proceeds
from an act of faith; it can neither be demonstrated nor denied from other state-
ments in the Gospels. Its major defect is the presupposition that the discourse was
intended to cater for two events separated by a long stretch of time”’ (op. cit., 115).
(ii) A second view is that the discourse combines two prophecies of Jesus into one
(op. cit., 115-27; cf. F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, ET from 2nd
French edition of 1870; W. Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, 1891; B. Weiss,
Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas, KEK, 1878; J. Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation
of the Kingdom of God, [1892] ET 1971). In the one Jesus looked forward to the
impending fall of Jerusalem; in the other to the end at a time unknown. (ii) A third
view sees the discourse as a continuous description of the Christian era (op. cit.,
127-31; cf. T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, II, 1909). Mk. 13:30
declares: “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these
things [tauta panta] take place.” On this interpretation tauta panta were only the
beginning, and the end would not come until the gospel had been preached through-
out the world. Against this Beasley-Murray adduces Mk. 9:1 and Matt. 10:23
which refer to the imminent coming of the Son of man. This he finds irreconcilable
with the apparently prolonged ongoing events of much of Mk. 13. (iv) A fourth
view is the application of “‘Prophetic Perspective” which brings together events
which in fact may be widely separated, as in a view of a mountain range in which the
peaks appear to be close together (op. cit., 131-141; cf. J. A. Bengel, Gnomon, I,
ET 1857, 417, 426; C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 1886; The Messiah of the
Gospels, 1984; The Messiah of the Apostles, 1895; P. Schwarzkopf, Die Weissagungen
Jesu Christi, von seinem Tode, seiner Auferstehung und Wiederkunft und ihre Erfillung
1895; C. H. Turner in C. Gore, H. L. Goudge and A. Guillaume, eds., 4 New
Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1928, 102). Turner took the ignorance which Jesus
attributed to hirhself (v. 32) to imply that Jesus was mistaken about the time-scale
of events. (v) A fifth view suggests that the discourse is a composition of isolated
fragments (op. cit., 141-46; cf. D. E. Haupt, Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu
in den synoptischen Evangelien, 1895; F. C. Burkitt, Jesus Christ: An Historical
Outline, 49 ff. (vi) Finally Beasley-Murray reviews works since about 1930 which
move towards a synthesis (op. cit., 146-67). The works include G. Gloege, Gottes
Reich und Kirche im Neuen Testament, 1929; H. D. Wendland, Die Eschatologie
des Reiches Gottes bei Jesu, 1931; F. Busch, Zum Verstdndnis der synoptischen
Eschatologie. Markus 13 neu untersucht, 1938; C. C. Torrey, Documents of the
Primitive Church, 1941; C. J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus, 1941; H. H.
Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic, 1944; P. Althaus, Die letzten Dinge, 19495;
J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus, NTD, 1949°, and Das Evangelium
nach Matthdus, NTD, 1950°; and A. Farrer, A Study of St. Mark, 1951. The
consensus of opinion is that Jesus did expect a near end and that Mk. 13 is to some
extent composite. But the main thrust of the teaching is to bring home to people
the significance of the present.
Beasley-Murray himself sees no contradiction between the need for watchfulness
and the suddenness of the end. But he insists that genea (v. 30) must mean — genera-
tion (op. cit., 260 f.). Jesus was thus mistaken in his prophetic time-scale, though
this 1s mitigated by v. 32, and it does not undermine Jesus’ authority as a teacher.
Although some sayings may have been added (e.g. vv. 15 f.), Beasley-Murray does
910
PRESENT
not think that the discourse as a whole is a composite work. Although it shares a
common OT background with Jewish writings, the apocalyptic in the discourse
omits a great deal of typical Jewish apocalyptic (op. cit., 220-26). The parousia is
in fact integral not only to the teaching of Jesus but to his life and death. “‘If it is
true, as William Manson wrote, ‘We do not approach the parousia prediction
rightly unless we come to it by way of Gethsemane and Calvary’, the reverse is
also true: it requires the vindication of the parousia to set Gethsemane and Calvary
in their right context’’ (op. cit., 220; cf. W. Manson, Christ’s View of the Kingdom
of God, 1918, 163).
Beasley-Murray inclines to the view that Matt. (cf. ch. 24) and Lk. (cf. ch. 21)
had independent access to the teaching that occurs in Mk. 13 (op. cit., 226-30).
He also suggests that Paul was also familiar with it (op. cit., 232 ff.; cf. 1 Thess.
4:15 ff. = Mk. 13:26f., Matt. 24:31; 1 Thess. 5:1-5 = Mk. 13:32 f., Lk. 21:24—
35: 1 Thess. 5:6 ff. = Mk. 13:35 f., cf. 33, 37; 1 Thess.5:4-10 = Mk. 13:22; 2
Thess. 1:3 ff. = Mk. 13:9-13; 2 Thess. 1:6-10 = Mk. 13:16 f.; 2 Thess. 1:11 f.
— Lk. 21:36; 2 Thess. 2:1 f. = Mk. 13:26 f.; 2 Thess. 2:3 = Mk. 13:5, Matt.
24:12; 2 Thess. 2:4 ff. = Mk. 13:14; 2 Thess. 2:7 = Matt. 24:12; 2 Thess. 2:8-12
= Mk. 13:22, cf. Lk. 24:11, Mk. 1:36; 2 Thess. 2:13 = Mk. 13:27, cf. Lk. 21:8;
2 Thess. 2:15 = Mk. 13:23, cf. 31). There are also affinities with Jn. in the shape
of ‘‘the thought of the disciples witnessing to a hostile world by the aid of the Holy
Spirit amidst acute suffering, in the period between the death and resurrection of
Jesus and the parousia. If the keynote of Jn. 13-17 is ‘In the world you have tribu-
lation, but be of good cheer, J have overcome the world’ (16.33), in Mk. 13 the
stress is on the future victory. Both these characteristic emphases of the gospels’
are needed” (op. cit., 238). Similarly the theme of wars, international strife, famine,
pestilence, persecutions, earthquakes and heavenly portents which are found in
Rev. 6 all occur in Mk. 13, Matt. 24 and Lk. 21, though not necessarily in that
order (op. cit., 238 ff.).
In view of its independent use by Paul and various other factors, Beasley-
Murray suggests that if the material existed in documentary form it might even be
“the most ancient document of Christianity’’ (op. cit., 246). He rejects the case that
the discourse contains traces of the LXX, and holds that there are positive indica-
tions that the discourse was Aramaic in origin, having a quasi-poetic structure.
Although this does not automatically authenticate the discourse, it would be
consonant with tracing it back to Jesus himself. If the unity of these sayings
with other known sayings of Jesus has been shown, “‘the Aramaic background
of the discourse will confirm our belief that the discourse is authentic” (op. cit.,
250).
W. G. Kiimmel is among those who think that Mk. 13:30 (par. Matt. 24: 34,
Lk. 21:32) was understood by Mk. to refer to the events leading up to the end
which will occur within the lifetime of this generation (Promise and Fulfilment:
The Eschatological Message of Jesus, SBT 23, 19617, 60). However, he suggests
that ‘“‘these things’ in v. 29 are not necessarily the same as “‘all these things’’ in v.
30. Moreover, he believes that “‘it is wrong to attempt to derive the exegesis of the
saying from the immediate context given by Mark, which the original independence
of the saying does not justify.”” To Kimmel Matt. 10:23 confirms the conclusion
‘‘that Jesus reckoned on the coming of the Kingdom of God and of the Son of Man
O11
PRESENT
in glory within the lifetime of the generation of his hearers”’ (op. cit., 64).
A. L. Moore gives an alternative interpretation of Mk. 13:30: it refers not “‘to
specific events but rather to the entire complex of events which may be termed
‘signs of the end’ and which are to be experienced, though not necessarily exhausted
by, the contemporary generation” (The Parousia in the New Testament, Supple-
ments to NovT, 13, 1966, 133). The answer to the question “‘when?”’ (v. 4) is not
given here but in wv. 32 ff. (with Jesus’ professed ignorance and the parable of the
doorkeeper). Mk. 13:30 answers the question of the “‘signs’’ (v. 4). “‘But whereas
the signs will occur within the immediate future (though not necessarily exhausted
by that immediate future), the End itself is not so delimited”’ (op. cit., 134 f.). In
both cases there is a parable attached. In the case of the signs it is the parable of the
fig tree (vv. 28 f.; — Fruit, art. syké). The question remains whether the versions
of Matt. and Lk. support this interpretation. In Matt. G. Barth claims that expec-
tation of the imminent end recedes, and exhortation comes to the fore (in G.
Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew,
1963, 61). If this is so, it is indeed surprising that Matt. 24:34 is included in the
discourse, if it were understood by him to express a delimited parousia expectation.
It would be insufficient, as Moore points out (ibid.) to say that this is counter-
balanced by the parables of Matt. 25 envisaging some delay. It would have been
simpler for Matt. to omit the verse entirely. In the case of Lk., H. Conzelmann
thinks that Lk. altered the meaning of Mk. 13:30. Whereas in Mk. genea means
generation, in Lk. 21:32 it means “humanity in general” (The Theology of St Luke,
1960, 131). Lk. also omits tauta, so that his version reads: “‘Truly, I say to you,
this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.” Thus the verse refers
to “‘the whole of the Divine plan” (ibid.). However, Moore rightly questions
whether there is a significant shift of understanding (ibid.). For even in Lk. genea is
best understood as generation. And the omission of tauta is probably a stylistic
alteration. Moreover, the saying is preceded by a reference to the coming of the
Son of man, the impending redemption and the parable of the fig tree (vv. 27-30).
This would seem to delimit the end for the contemporary generation also in Lk.,
in view of the rejection of Conzelmann’s understanding of generation. Thus there
is no essential difference between the Synoptic Evangelists, for all three are con-
cerned with the signs which the contemporary generation will see which inaugurate
the end, but do not necessarily contain the end. With this view we may compare
Cullmann’s view noted above that we are already in the end time, though the end
has not yet come (see above | (e)).
In Prophecy Interpreted: The Function of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of
the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13 Par., Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament
Series 1, 1966 L. Hartman argues that Mk. 13 is a midrash on various passages
from the book of Daniel. Among the parallels that he sees are the following: dei
genesthai, “‘this must take place’ (Mk. 13:7 = Dan. 2:28; — Necessity, art. dei);
to bdelygma tés erémoseds, — “‘the abomination of desolation” (Mk. 13:14 = Dan.
9:27; 12:11); thlipsis hoia ou gegonen toiauté ap’ archés ktiseds hén ektisen ho theos
héos tou nyn, “‘such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation
which God created until now” (Mk. 13:19 = Dan. 12:1; — Persecution, art.
thlipsis); and ton hyion tou anthropou erchomenon en nephelais, — ‘‘the Son of man
coming in clouds” (Mk. 13:26 = Dan. 7:13 f.). The whole passage is seen as an
912
PRESENT
exposition or meditation on the texts in Dan. for the end time. Both the hortatory
and the apocalyptic material in Mk. 13 are derived from Dan., apart from the
conclusion (Mk. 13:33 f.) which was added. The presence of the same themes in 1
and 2 Thess. (noted above by Beasley-Murray) suggests that Paul also knew the
pre-Marcan midrash. For discussion of Hartman’s speculative reconstruction of
how the discourse came into being see D. Wenham, TSF Bulletin 71, 10 f., who
concludes that while there are firm links between Mk. 13 and Dan., the case has
not been established that it is a midrash of the kind posited by Hartman, involving
no less than nine stages of development and adaptation before it reached its Marcan
form.
A considerable degree of redaction in Mk. 13 is claimed by J. Lambrecht in
Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse: Literarische Analyse und Strukturunter-
suchung, Analecta Biblica 28, 1967. Mark was not just a collector of stories but a
careful theological editor. (For a review of his verse-by-verse treatment of the
chapter see D. Wenham, op. cit., 11-15.) Lambrecht sees the discourse as Jesus’
last revelation and warning following his final break with the Jewish authorities.
Much of it goes back to pre-Marcan traditions, including Q, and has close con-
nections with the LXX. But a considerable amount is due to Mark himself who
has imposed on it his own structure. The description of Jesus’ coming (vv. 24-27)
is the central element, but the thrust of the chapter as a whole is more towards
warning and encouraging than giving apocalyptic information. Whilst recognizing
many acute observations, Wenham concludes that Lambrecht’s suggestion about
the origins of the material are highly speculative, often exaggerating difficulties
and apt to equate sayings in the Gospel tradition that are similar but far from
identical. Moreover, his argument is cumulative, often taking certain verses to be
secondary Marcan compilations on the ground that they make sense in the Marcan
context (which he has earlier concluded to be secondary) and not elsewhere.
Another work which adopts a redaction-critical approach is R. Pesch’s Nah-
erwartungen. Tradition und Redaktion in Markus 13, 1968. His review of previous
students of the passage includes Beasley-Murray, Hartman (who, he thinks, has
proved the opposite of what he claims, i.e. that Mk. 13 is not a Danielic midrash)
and Lambrecht. His chief complaint is that most scholars have tended to jump
from the exegetical question to that of the historical Jesus without paying adequate
(redaction-critical) attention to the chapter within its Marcan context. He agrees
with Lambrecht in dividing the discourse into three sections: vv. 5b—23, 24-27,
28-37. According to Pesch, the pre-Marcan tradition included: (1) a group of
persecution logia which were the work of Christian prophets (vv. 9, 13a, 11),
since they do not reflect Jesus’ earthly ministry; (2) two parables which may go
back to Jesus (vv. 28b, 34); (3) two logia which could go back to Jesus in their
original form (vv. 31, 32, the latter especially with its confession of Jesus’ ignorance);
(4) an apocalyptic tract whose contents are typical of the apocalyptic tradition,
but whose vocabulary is not typical of the Gospel (vv. 6, 22, 7b, 8, 13b—-17, 718, 19
and 20a, 24-27). In direct contrast to Beasley-Murray, Pesch argues that there is
here an unusually close dependence on the LXX which suggests that it was not
part of Jesus’ teaching. He thinks that it arose in Gk.-speaking circles. The tract
was originally purely Jewish, but was taken over by Christians some time before
A.D. 70 and applied to the Jewish War. Mk.’s intention is to warn against those
913
PRESENT
who were deceiving people by their calculations about the end-time, and also
maintain a hope for a near end in the interests of attitudes to the present. D.
Wenham sees in the work a propensity to unwarranted speculation (though not
so great as Lambrecht’s) and to lean on questionable assumptions (7SF Bulletin
72, 3). He regularly explains the tension between the second and third persons in
the chapter as a reflection of Mk.’s use of sources, when it need not be. He is apt
to assume that a saying which describes a church situation (e.g. v. 9b) must derive
from that situation, and that a phrase reflecting Marcan vocabulary must derive
from Mark himself. The work is characterized by an apparent unwillingness to try
to make sense of the chapter not only in terms of Mk.’s theology but also in terms
of Mk.’s apparent intention, i.e. to record what Jesus said.
In No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the
Synoptic Gospels, Supplements to NovT 23, 1970, Lloyd Gaston urges the need for a
form-critical approach to Mk. 13. On the ground that the discourse is a farewell
discourse in form, but that there is no reference to Jesus’ coming death in it, he
suggests that it may go back to a synoptic apocalypse that was originally regarded
as part of Jesus’ post-Easter teaching. To look for an apocalyptic source to which
paraenetic elements have been added is to approach the question from the wrong
end. ““The framework of the discourse is provided by the parenetic, to which
apocalyptic elements have been ‘added’ ”’ (op. cit., 52). The characteristic words
are blepete, ‘“‘see’’ (vv. 5, 9, 23, 33) and grégoreite, ““watch’’(vv. 34, 35, 37). The
hortatory elements (vv. 5b, 7a, 8b, 9a, 13b, 21, 23, 28 f., 33-37) can readily be
separated from the apocalyptic elements (wv. 6, 7b, 8a, 14-20, 22, 24-27), a division
which very nearly corresponds to the formal distinction between the second and
third persons. But, “It should be clear that this separation of different ‘elements’
has nothing to do with literary criticism in the sense of looking for ‘sources’, for
neither series is capable of standing alone. We are only trying to isolate special
characteristics of the chapter in order to determine the original function” (op. cit.,
52). Gaston thinks that the discourse was originally the work of Christian — pro-
phets which went through various stages of adaptation (op. cit., 61 ff.). The core
was an unfulfilled oracle (vv. 14-19) which had its origin between the winter of
A.D. 39-40 and the following winter. The original oracle referred to a situation
similar to that of the time of Dan. It was then reapplied to the fall of Jerusalem.
Jesus had spoken of a decisive event that would happen during the lifetime of those
who witnessed his death. Because he had also predicted the fall of Jerusalem the
two events were combined, and coupled with the winter oracle. Various other
features were added in the course of time. Mk.’s own contribution (which was in
fact to “‘mislead interpreters down to the present’’ [op. cit., 63]) was to set the
whole discourse in answer to a question concerning the destruction of the temple.
D. Wenham rightly draws attention to exegetical weaknesses in the build-up of
the case here: ““The author explains with confidence the history of the traditions
contained in the chapter, but like others he builds too much on too little” (TSF
Bulletin 72, 5). Moreover, he tends to deal with the chapter verse by verse without
analyzing carefully the direction and purpose of the whole. If Jesus could predict
separately the decisive event after his death and the fall of Jerusalem, it is difficult
to see why he could not have predicted them together or foreseen some relationship
between the two himself, especially in view of Jewish attitudes. Finally, considerable
914
PRESENT
weight here is placed on the creative r6le of Christian prophets who were evidently
at least as influential as Jesus himself in their eschatological teaching and whose
word was equally authoritative. But the evidence for them is very slight (for dis-
cussion —> Prophet, art. prophétés NT).
A redaction critical approach is adopted by Willi Marxsen in his study of Mark
13 in Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel, 1969,
151-206. Despite what he considers to be the divergent material and inner contra-
dictions, he maintains that Mk. intended the chapter as a unity (op. cit., 166). But
‘here as elsewhere, Mark does not give thought to utterances of the historical Jesus.
It is rather the Risen Lord who speaks — through the evangelist. That is, for Mark
the gospel is the proclamation of the Risen Lord to the present” (op. cit., 170).
The destruction of the temple has already taken place. ““The end time has begun
its course. Men stand right at the beginning of the end. And he who is with the
‘community is the same who was and is to come”’ (op. cit., 188). The whole dis-
course is thus presented by Mk. with many of the events described already in the
past, but preparing the church for the imminent final end. Marxsen goes on to
argue that Matt. has somewhat modified the material to adapt it to the situation
of the missionary church, having surrendered the imminent expectation of Mk.
Similarly, Lk. writes from the standpoint of his own experience and composes the
first “‘church history’’, beginning with Jesus. In the evaluation of Marxsen’s thesis
much depends upon the evaluation of his use of redaction critical techniques. But a
pivotal point is clearly the dating of the NT books. It is frequently assumed that
the Gospels were composed sometime after A.D. 70 which in turn is partly based on
the assumption that the prophecies in Mk. 13 are vaticinia ex eventu, i.e. not really
prophecies at all but history written to look like prophecy. But a recent challenge
to the widely accepted dating has come from J. A. T. Robinson in Redating the
New Testament, 1976, who maintains that the whole of the NT together with the
Didache was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Whilst we may agree
that the chapter is essentially a discourse for the present, it may be thought that
Marxsen, like so many of his predecessors, has too readily assumed the imminence
of the parousia in the sense of the end of the world through not paying sufficient
attention to the linguistic background of the concepts used.
With regard to the chronology of events in Mk. 13, D. Wenham adopts what is
perhaps the most common conservative verdict: “Unless it is to be concluded that
the Jesus of Mark is mistaken in his understanding of timing, we have then to
assume that the time-scale is very compressed, so that what seem like near events
are so only theologically; chronologically they are widely separated”’ (op. cit., 8).
But in conclusion attention may be drawn to the somewhat different approach
shared by two conservative scholars, J. M. Kik, Matthew Twenty-Four: An Exposi-
tion, 1948 (reprinted in An Eschatology of Victory, 1971, 53-173), and R. T.
France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to
Himself and his Mission, 1971. France argues that the whole context and argument
of Mk. 13:4-23 could and does apply to events leading up to the judgment on
Jerusalem (op. cit., 232). Kik similarly argues that Matt. 24:4-35 refers to the
destruction of Jerusalem and the excision of the Jewish nation from the kingdom,
whereas Matt. 24:36—25:46 refers to the second coming of Christ (An Eschatology
of Victory, 73). There is warning of false Christs and persecution (Mk. 13:5—13 par.),
915
PRESENT
together with that of the — abomination of desolation (vv. 14 f. par.) which is a
sign of the intensification of persecution, the greatest tribulation yet experienced
and more false Christs. But all this can be read as applicable to the events
leading up to the fall of Jerusalem. Then come the crucial verses Mk. 13:24—27 par.
Matt. 24:29 ff., Lk. 21:25-28 which traditionally have been taken to refer to
cosmic events and the second coming in view of the reference to the sun and moon
not giving their light, the stars falling, the powers of heaven being shaken: ““And
then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds,
from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.’ This is followed by the parable
of the fig tree, the promise that “‘this generation will not pass away before all these
things take place’ (Mk. 13:30 par. Matt. 24:34, Lk. 21:32) which in turn 1s
followed by Jesus’ profession of ignorance of the time (Mk. 13:32 par. Matt.
24:36), and the parable teaching watchfulness (Mk. 13:33-37; cf. Matt. 25:14 f,,
Lk. 19:12 f.).
In context the theme of the discourse is the destruction of the — temple which
symbolizes the judgment on Israel in view of its rejection of Jesus and his preaching.
But the discourse is not simply concerned with Israel; it is also concerned with the
disciples and the new Israel. For paradoxically the judgment which will fall on
ancient Israel will bring them great trial and tribulation (Matt. 24:21; Mk. 13:19;
cf. Dan. 12:1). Indeed, it is for the sake of the elect that the Lord has cut short
(ekolobésen) those days (Mk. 13:20, cf. Matt. 24:22). All this leads up to Mk.
13:24—27 par. which we might expect to deal with the judgment on Israel. Whereas
other scholars assume that there is a jump in Jesus’ thought here to the second
coming, Kik and France say that these verses are actually a description of the
judgment on Israel which did indeed occur within the lifetime of that generation
and which in fact is also supported by the parable of the fig tree (—~ Fruit, art.
syké). The language is, in fact, that of OT prophecy and apocalyptic which in the
context of the OT is used to describe this-worldly events, in particular, judgments.
The phrases in Mk. 13:24 f. par. are drawn from Isa. 13:10 and 34:4 (the former
predicting the doom of Babylon; the latter that of “‘all the nations’’, but with
special reference to Edom). Similar examples may be seen in Ezek. 32:7 (con-
cerning Egypt), Amos 8:9 (concerning the northern kingdom), Joel 2:10 (con-
cerning Judah), and constantly in Joel 3-4 concerning God’s judgment on Judah
and other nations (France, op. cit., 233; Kik, op. cit., 129 ff.). Similarly, Peter
uses the cosmological language of Joel 2:28-32 in his Pentecost sermon (Acts
2:17—21) to interpret the outpouring of the Spirit, when there were no patent
celestial phenomena. Thus Jesus is not predicting abnormal astronomical events;
he is predicting the judgment of God on the Jewish nation in the OT language of
judgment. We might add that the cosmic symbolism has the double function of
drawing attention to the fact that this judgment is in the main stream of prophetic
judgment and of emphasizing the divine dimension of something that is happen-
ing in history using imagery associated with the day of the Lord. But it may also
have the further function of disclosing the significance of events in the same way
that the — parables function. For those who have ears to hear and eyes to See,
the utterance has significance, otherwise it remains veiled. It is on a par with the
messianic secret, and indeed belongs to it.
916
PRESENT
Mk. 13:26 par. takes up Dan. 7:13. France writes: “‘Jesus is using Daniel 7:13
as a prediction of that authority which he exercised when in A.D. 70 the Jewish
nation and its leaders, who had condemned him, were overthrown, and Jesus
was vindicated as the recipient of all power from the Ancient of Days”’ (op. cit.,
236). The coming in clouds referred to here is thus not a visible return in judgment
but an allusion to Jesus’ ascent to the Father and accession of authority. The visible
events of the fall of Jerusalem are in fact the vindication of Jesus. A similar sense
is present in Mk. 14:62. The seeing means that they will see for themselves that
their time of power is finished, and that God has given all power in heaven and
earth to Jesus. The parallelism of “‘coming” and “‘sitting’ in Mk. 14:62 is itself a
warning against taking the ‘““coming”’ too literally. Clouds are a common piece of
OT symbolism, denoting the power of God especially in judgment (cf. Isa. 19:1;
Pss. 97:2 f.; 104:3). Matt. 24:30 takes up the language of Zech. 12:10 ff., which
in context refers to the mourning of the Jews, and is appropriate in this context.
Mk. 13:27 par. Matt. 24:31 uses the language of Deut. 30:4 and Zech. 2:6[10]
(also Isa. 27:13 in the case of Matt.), none of which passages demand an escha-
tological sense in context. Here they are typologically applied to the gathering of
the Christian church, the new Israel, from all the nations, as distinct from the old
Israel descended from Abraham (France, op. cit., 238).
Fhe parable of the fig tree is a parabolic warning that these things are beginning
to happen, and Mk. 13:30 par. emphasizes that they will all happen within a
generation. But Mk. 13:32 par. looks ahead to “that day” and “‘hour”’ which is
known only to the Father. Two lines of interpretation may be considered. One is
that it refers to the events in history that Jesus has been talking about, and thus
the whole discourse does not look beyond the fall of Jerusalem, the consequent
rejection of the Jewish nation and the vindication of the Son. This would not pre-
clude a further parousia of the Son of man or a culmination of history (e.g. Matt.
13:40 ¥£.; 25:1-46); it would merely state that this is not the theme of the present
discourse. The other would be to say, with France and Kik, that the final part of
the discourse looks ahead to the second coming of Christ. In the meantime the
disciples are like servants put in charge of property whilst the master is away on a
journey. They are to watch, lest when he comes, he should find them asleep. France’s
examination of the language rejects the view that the alleged Septuagintalisms in
the text show that it could not have had a Semitic origin. From the standpoint of
both language and thought, the discourse is entirely conceivable as the teaching
of Jesus in the context set by the evangelists. It provides teaching for the disciples
that is relevent to their situation as followers of the historical Jesus. He foresaw
his own death which was paradoxically the final culminating act of Israel’s rejec-
tion of him and thus also of God, and at the same time it was the decisive act in
God’s rejection of Israel. From that point onwards the temple (and with it Jeru-
salem and Israel) had no more future in salvation history. The disciples will live
to see Jesus vindicated and Israel judged. But in the meantime they must expect
persecution and watch.
(b) The eschatology of Luke. We have already had occasion to note Hans
Conzelmann’s argument in The Theology of St Luke, 1960, that the traditional
Christian time-scheme which divides history into three periods, the age of Israel,
the time when Jesus was on earth, and the age of the church, was the creation of
917
PRESENT
Luke (see above | (e); cf. also Conzelmann’s An Outline Theology of the New
Testament, 1969). Luke, he argues, developed this ostensibly because the expected
parousia failed to materialize. Conzelmann himself further subdivides the middle
period of Jesus into three parts: Jesus in Galilee, on the way to Jerusalem, and the
time in Jerusalem. Similarly, Acts can be subdivided into three parts: Jerusalem,
Samaria and the neighbouring regions, and the world (Asia Minor, Greece and
Rome). Since Lk.’s Gospel is more of a biography than Mk., and his Acts is the
first history of the church, Luke is often credited by contemporary NT scholars as
the creator of early catholicism, though it is not often made clear whether the term
is positive or pejorative or indeed what precisely it means. Conzelmann argues
that the ministry of Jesus and the age of the church are separated by a holy time,
consisting of the resurrection appearances at Jerusalem over a period of forty days.
The Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost, is no longer the eschatological gift “but the
substitute in the meantime for the possession of ultimate salvation”’ (op. cit. 95).
Lk. does not expect the parousia soon. Apocalyptic signs may occur, but “‘the end
will not be at once” (Lk. 21:9; cf. Mk. 13:7; Matt. 24:6). Lk. is concerned with
the period of the church in Acts which reaches from Jesus’ ascension to the future
parousia. He is interested in relations with the Roman empire and the Jewish
people (op. cit., 148). The church is the new people of God continuing salvation
history and existing under persecution. Thus Luke replaces the imminent parousia
with a scheme in which the institution of the church occupies a more prominent
place.
A somewhat different approach is that put forward by H. Flender in St Luke:
Theologian of Redemptive History, 1965. From his analysis of the dialectical
structure of Luke-Acts Flender concludes that Luke had an overriding theological
concern. He places side by side what belongs to the old world and to the new
world of God, showing the gulf between the sinful world under judgment and God
(op. cit., 34 f.). The time-scheme of salvation in Lk.-Acts is like that in Rev. 12:.
first victory in heaven, and then victory on earth (op. cit., 102 f.). As a historian
and theologian of redemptive history, Luke had a threefold task: “‘First, he had to
preserve the unique character of the Christ event in on-going history. Secondly,
there was the problem of historical continuity between Israel and the Church.
Thirdly, there was the problem of how to describe the presence of salvation in the
Christian community as it passes through time”’ (op. cit., 91). Christ’s exaltation is
seen as ‘the consummation of salvation in heaven”’ (ibid.). Christ’s occupation of
the temple ‘“‘is a kind of symbolic anticipation of his enthronement in heaven” (op.
cit., 93). The ascension story “contains unmistakable echoes of the parousia
terminology” (ibid.; cf. Acts 1:9 ff.; Dan. 7:13). In his handling of Lk. 17:22 ff.,
and the above material, Luke is not simply postponing the parousia: “He transfers
theological statements previously associated with the parousia to the exaltation”
(op. cit., 98). ‘“The ascension, as Luke sees it, is a kind of anticipation of the
parousia in heaven’ (op. cit., 94). The apocalyptic sayings in Lk. 17 have an
individual application in Lk.: ‘‘in that day one shall be taken and the other left”
(Lk. 17:34; cf. 12:20) is similar to the words addressed to the dying thief (Lk.
23:43). Both refer to the individual’s death by which he either loses or gains life.
“The cross is not now the absolute end of the world. It is the preliminary end for
the individual Christian who hears its message in the word of preaching” (op. cit.,
918
PRESENT
19; cf. 15). Flender holds that there is a continuity and a discontinuity between this
age and the age to come. History goes on, as it were, on a horizontal plane. But
there is also the vertical dimension of the divine realm. Flender concludes that
Luke solves the problem of their relationship by discovering ‘‘a via media between
the gnostic denial and the early catholic canonization of history. His solution is to
give simultaneous expression to the supernatural mystery and the earthly visibility
of Christ and his history” (op. cit., 167). For in his humility Jesus “‘belongs to the
new period.... In his divinity he stands outside of any chronological scheme,
sharing God’s contemporaneity with all human time” (op. cit., 125). The corollary
for Flender is that ‘“‘Luke has no notion of any redemptive history extending in
time’’ (op. cit., 162).
E. E. Ellis replies to this by drawing attention to two premises of Lucan thought
(Eschatology in Luke, Facet Books, Biblical Series 30, 1972, 8 ff.). On the one hand,
man is understood as a unified totality who may indeed be viewed from different
perspectives but who is not a dualism consisting of body and soul. This understand-
ing of man is taken over from the OT and was shared by Jesus and Paul. It may
be seen in Lk.’s sources. Thus psyché usually means “‘life’’ or “‘self’? which is lost
at death (Lk. 9:24; 12:19 f.; Acts 2:27 = Ps. 16:10; 20:10; 27:22). In the midrash
at Acts 2:31 the parallelism of self and sarx (flesh) follows the parallelism of
psyché and self in the preceding quotation (Acts 2:27; cf. 13:37). There is a paral-
lelism of psyché and pneuma (spirit) at Lk. 1:46 f., of psyché and sdéma at Lk.
12:22 f., and the equivalent use of pneuma and psyché for life-principle at Lk. 8:55
and Acts 20:10. Lk. 12:20 (“your soul is required of you’’) and 23:46 (cf. Acts
2:27, 31) reinforce the impression that no anthropological dualism affects Luke’s
handling of his traditions. Even in the Areopagus address, Ellis claims that Luke
understands Acts 17:28 differently from the traditional Stoic-pantheistic concept
or is using it as an argumentum ad hominem. On the other hand, the Platonic con-
trast of time and eternity is equally absent from Luke’s eschatology, as it is from the
NT generally. The contrast between heaven and earth is not an occasion for cos-
mological speculation. It is a contrast of the “‘seen’’ and the “‘unseen”’ which, like
his anthropology, has antecedents in Paul and the OT (cf. Acts 7:56; 12:6-L1; 2
Ki. 6:17; and W. C. van Unnik, “Die gedfineten Himmel” in W. Schneemelcher,
ed., Apophoreta. Festschrift fur Ernst Haenchen, BZNW 30, 1964, 269-80). ‘‘Luke’s
conception of ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ may be compared to two television channels
showing different segments of the same auto race. The action is contemporaneous
with and related to the other. But viewers of Channel | do not see the action of
Channel 2” (op. cit., 10). In this connection Ellis agrees with Cullmann that the
resurrection hope is not a compromise between Judaism and Platonism. A theology
hat includes the departure of the soul to a timeless realm or sees death as the
nticipation of the parousia contradicts the NT concept of the temporal redemption
of the whole man (ibid.; cf. O Cullmann, Jmmortality of the Soul or Resurrection
of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament, 1958).
In view of this, Luke’s eschatology should be seen “‘within the framework of a
two-stage eschatology and a monistic anthropology, a temporal redemption of
the whole man from death. It is characterized by a concern to show the exclusive
mediation of the eschatological fulfilment through Jesus and, thereby, to show
the relationship of this age to the age to come” (op. cit., 11). In the mission of the
919
PRESENT
earthly Jesus the new age of the kingdom of God becomes present in his creative
word and acts (Lk. 11:20; cf. 10:9, 11, 18; 19:11; 21:8 f.; E. E. Ellis, “Present and
Future Eschatology in Luke’, N7S 12, 1965-66, 27-41). This is not simply a
Lucan perspective, but goes back to Jesus himself (cf. W. G. Kiimmel, Promise
and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, SBT 23, 1957, 106-24, 138 ff.).
The mission of the seventy (Lk. 10) presupposes the identification of Jesus’ followers
with his own person (Lk. 10:16; cf. Matt. 10:40; Jn. 13:20) and is thus a means of
making the kingdom present. Similarly the dying thief will be “‘with me”’ in his
exaltation (Lk. 24:43). In the Last Supper the participants are invited to “‘see the
eschatological consummation in the present through union with the departing
Jesus” (Kiimmel, op. cit., 121; quoted by Ellis, op. cit., 12). The Semitic idea of
corporate solidarity of the group with its leader underlies Acts 9:4 and probably
the temple motif (Lk. 20:17 f.; Acts 6:14; 7:48; 15:16; 17:24; cf. B. Gartner,
The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament, Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series 1, 103, 122, 123-42).
From all this Ellis concludes that ‘“‘The identification of the eschatological
fulfilment exclusively with Jesus provides the rationale by which the relationship
of this age and the age to come is to be understood” (op. cit., 13). The twofold
eschatology of apocalyptic Judaism of blessing and judgment becomes a two-stage
eschatology. ““The Spirit’s activity in and through Jesus brings eschatological
blessings of the coming age now, but the judgment and the consummation of the
kingdom are deferred’’ (ibid.). Whereas Flender sees the vertical dimension in
Luke’s eschatology as a consummation in heaven that is manifested on earth,
Ellis sees a consummation on earth in the resurrection and exaltation of Jepus
that 1s presently manifested in heaven. Salvation history on earth incorporates
in it a heavenly dimension. “‘For Jesus’ followers the vertical dimension is not a
road map of their individual pilgrimage but rather a relationship with the One
who is in heaven ‘until the times of universal apokatastasis’’’ (op. cit., 14; cf.
Acts 3:21; Lk. 17:34 f.; 21:27; Acts 1:11; 17:31).
Moreover, the person and mission of Jesus define for Luke the nature of the
continuity and discontinuity the age to come (ibid.). The healings (cf. Lk. 5:23 f.;
13:16; Acts 26:18), the nature miracles and Jesus’ own resurrection point to the
new age as a fulfilment and deliverance of the created order from the death-powers
of the present age (cf. the references to — paradise [Lk. 23:43], ~ Adam [LKk.
3:38], restoration [Acts 1:6; 3:21]; and the parallel between “‘sons of the resurrec-
tion” and those who “‘live in God” [Lk. 20:38; Acts 17:28]). Yet the kingdom of
God is also something radically new whose discontinuity with the present age is as
radical as that between death and resurrection. ‘““The fate of Jesus is the fate of the
disciple, who also must go ‘through many tribulations’ and ‘lose his life’ if he, like
Jesus, is to become ‘a son of the resurrection’ ”’ (ibid.; cf. Acts 14:22; Lk. 17:33;
20:36; 22:28 ff.; and the parallels in Paul in Rom. 6:4, 10-13; Col. 3:1—5, 12).
Whilst issuing a timely warning against the tendency to see an opponent behind
every bush in the NT theological garden, Ellis does allow that Luke’s eschatology
may contain certain correctives. Thus the prologue (Lk. 1:4) suggests that Lk.
may be correcting heretical misinformation. The strong emphasis on the physical
nature of Jesus’ resurrection and the careful distinction between the resurrection
and the ascension are intended to safeguard the resurrection against a heavenly
920
PRESENT
or spiritual interpretation. The discontinuity between the present age and the
kingdom is a warning against political messianism. And the emphasis on the
presence of the Spirit and the unity of the disciple with the exalted Lord (Lk. 23:43;
Acts 7:56) corrects an improper anticipation of the coming end of the age (op. cit.,
15).
In Ellis’s view, to suggest that Luke’s eschatological framework arose out of
embarrassment over the delay in the parousia is to misconceive the nature of the
problem. In any case, there is a basic tension between ““Thy kingdom come” and
“If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, the kingdom of God has come upon
you”’ which goes back to Jesus himself (Matt. 6:10; 12:28; cf. W. G. Kimmel,
op. cit.; and “‘Futuristic and Realized Eschatology in the Earliest Stages of Chris-
tianity’, JR 43, 1963, 303-14). In point of fact, the delay-motif in Lk. “‘appears
before there was time to get embarrassed”’ (op. cit., 18). In Luke’s traditions there
was already the twin motif of “imminence and delay’’. But Luke’s problem is not
the delay of the parousia, ‘‘but a false apocalyptic speculation that has misapplied
the teachings of Jesus and threatens to pervert the church’s mission”’ (op. cit., 19).
The presence of apocalyptic fever in the second half of the Ist century is docu-
mented in both Christian sources and other writings (cf. Josephus, War 6, 5, 4;
Tacitus, History 5, 13; Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Vespasian 4; 2 Thess.
2:2). It is against this background that Luke records: “‘Being asked by the Pharisees
when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, ‘The kingdom of God
is not coming with signs to be observed; nor indeed will they say, ‘‘Lo, here it is!”
or “‘There!”’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you’ ” (Lk. 17:20 f.).
Similarly Acts 1:6 ff. records the question of the disciples: “‘ ‘Lord, will you at this
time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know the
times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall
receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my
witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.’ ”’
The theme of Acts is the church’s task as mission which is not served by preoccu-
pation with chronological speculation. “‘Because the eschatological reality is present
the length of the interval until the consummation of is no crucial significance”’
(op. cit., 19). The Lucan eschatology is set within the context of a two-stage
manifestation of the kingdom of God as present and future. Whereas Matt.
couples eschatology with the church, Luke combines eschatology and the — Spirit
(Lk. 3:16 f.; 11:31 f.; 17:21 ff.; Acts 1:2-16; 2:4-38; 4:8, 25, 31; 5:3, 9, 16, 32;
6:3, 5, 10; 7:51, 55, 59; 8:7-29; 9:17, 31; 10:19-47; 11:12-28; 13:2, 4, 9, 52;
15:8, 28 f.; 16:6-18; 17:26; 18:25; 19:1-21; 20:22 f., 28; 21:4, 11; 28:25) and
Jesus (Lk. 22:28 ff.; 23:43). However, it must also be said that these references
show the activity of the Spirit in relation to the church and Jesus. It is Jesus who
gives the Spirit (Lk. 3:16; Acts 2:33) and who represents in his resurrection an
individual fulfilment of the age to come. “‘His followers not only manifest the
same eschatological powers of the Spirit as he does, but they also have a corporate
identification with the (risen) Lord. In both ways Luke sets forth the new age as a
present reality”’ (op. cit., 20). But it is a present reality that requires future consum-
mation.
(c) Paul. It is a common presupposition of much NT interpretation that Paul
expected the parousia within his own lifetime. A more sophisticated version of this
921
PRESENT
belief is that argued by C. H. Dodd that Paul’s eschatology underwent a develop-
ment in the course of time (cf. ““The Mind of Paul’? I and II, in New Testament
Studies, 1953, 67-128; and the discussions of D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of
St. Paul, 1974?, 241-48; J. Lowe, “‘An Examination of Attempts to Detect Develop-
ments in St. Paul’s Theology’, J7S 42, 1941, 129-42; and J. C. Hurd, Jr., The
Origin of I Corinthians, 1965, 8 ff.; see above 1(c)). This draws a distinction between
the earlier epistles of Paul (1 and 2 Thess.; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 which was
originally part of a separate letter; 2 Cor. 10:1-13:10 which was also separate)
which envisaged an imminent parousia and the later ones (Rom.; 2 Cor. I-9; and
the Captivity Epistles) where the parousia has receded giving way to concerns
which imply an ongoing view of history. The change of mind came about through
the tensions with the Corinthian church involving a harsh, puritanical letter (2 Cor.
6:14-7:1 cf. 1 Cor. 5:9) and a further letter which included 2 Cor. 10:1—-13:10.
Following the capitulation of the dissident attitude, Paul wrote 2 Cor. 1-9 in which
Paul himself mellowed somewhat and is more inclined to accept the world than to
deny it, as in his allegedly earlier attitude.
In support of the specific eschatological contentions Dodd argues that | Thess.
4:15 ff. imply that Paul himself expected to experience the parousia: ‘“‘For we
declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until
the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the
Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s
call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise
first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in
the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord”’
(cf. 5:1; and Dodd, op. cit., 110). But in 2 Cor. 4:12 and 5:4 Paul faces the possi-
bility that he will die. The Thess. passage may be paralleled by the following:
“Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”’ (1 Cor.
15:51); ‘“‘the night is far gone, the day is at hand”’ (Rom. 13:12); ‘“‘The Lord is at
hand’ (Phil. 4:5); and “‘the appointed time has grown very short; from now on,
let those who have wives live as though they had none” (1 Cor. 7:29). Apart from
Rom. 13:11—14 among the later Pauline writings, there is a lack of emphasis on
the second coming. But here it must be noted that the same kind of language is
present in 2 Tim. | :12, 18. Moreover, Phil. 4:5 also belongs to a later Pauline epistle.
Admittedly, the earlier references to the Day of Christ (Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16) do not
specifically mention its proximity, but Phil. 4:5 implies no fundamental shift of
emphasis. Phil. 3:20 refers to heaven from which ‘‘we await a Saviour, the Lord
Jesus Christ.” To this Whiteley suggests that Paul may have reverted to his earlier
doctrine of the Thessalonian Epistles and 1 Cor., or even that Phil. may have been
an early epistle (op. cit., 247)!
Support for Dodd’s hypothesis is further seen in Paul’s allegedly changed attitude
to human institutions. In 1 Cor. 6:1—11 he is said to take a low view of Roman law
courts, whereas in Rom. 13:1-11 he takes a more positive attitude towards the
Roman state. But here it may be objected that the point in | Cor. is not to dis-
parage civil law courts, but to draw attention to the incongruity of believers
reverting to them to settle their internal disputes. In 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 Paul urges the
Corinthians to have nothing to do with unbelievers, whereas in Rom. 2:14 he envis-
ages a Gentile knowledge of God. But here too it may be said that the two passages
922
PRESENT
deal with quite different things. The passage tn 2 Cor. is concerned with sexual rey
lations with pagans in the context of the cult at Corinth, whereas Rom. 2:14 may
well refer to the fulfilment of the covenant promise of Jer. 31:33 among Gentile
believers (> God, art. theos, NT 4 (b)). In | Cor. 7 — marriage appears to be a
second best whereas in Col. 3:18 f. and Eph. 5:21-33 marriage is highly esteemed.
However, a high estimate of marriage can be combined with imminent expectation
(1 Pet. 3:1-7; 4:7; cf. J. Lowe, op. cit., 139; see also E. G. Selwyn, ‘“‘Eschatology
in | Peter’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., The Background of the New
Testament and its Eschatology: In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1954, 394-401).
Moreover, the difference of emphasis is not so sharp as might appear at first sight.
For in 1 Cor. 7 Paul does not condemn marriage as such. His positive point with
regard to marriage and everything else is that believers should deal with the world
“as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away”’
(1 Cor. 7:2). In | Cor. 7 this point is applied specifically to marriage, but it re-
mained for Paul a fixed point on which he never went back.
D. E. H. Whiteley admits that subsequent criticism has weakened Dodd’s case,
but he does not think that it has destroyed it (op. cit., 248). Clearly it would be
absurd to posit that Paul’s thought was insusceptible to any development in the
light of his missionary experience and further reflection. The crucial question is
not whether Paul grew in understanding but whether he shifted his position from
an expectation of the parousia in his lifetime to an indefinite postponement of it.
Part of Dodd’s case turns on the chronological order of Paul’s epistles. In general
scholarly opinion favours the broad outline which he accepts. However, there is
nio general endorsement of attempts to divide 2 Cor. in Dodd’s way, and C. K.
Barrett concludes his review of the various theories by suggesting that the epistle
is basically a unity, though chs. 10-13 were written at a later stage than chs. 1-9
(The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1973, 21). There are, however, other
ways of explaining the differing emphases in Paul’s writing. J. A. T. Robinson sees
in Paul a change which “‘is to be described as a shift from an apocalyptic to a non-
apocalyptic form of eschatology” (Jesus and His Coming, 1957, 161; on this see the
discussion of W. Baird below). C. F. D. Moule sees the shift in thought from 1 Cor.
15 to 2 Cor. 5 as involving the acknowledgement that the new clothing cannot be
simply put over the old, but rather the old must be given up in exchange (“‘St Paul
and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of Resurrection’, NTS 12, 1965-66, 106-
23). But even in | Cor. there is the recognition of the process of mortality (cf. |
Cor. 6:14; 15:53 f. with vv. 36 ff.). Moreover, the case for assuming that Paul
expected the parousia soon in | Thess. is far from water-tight. As early as | Thess.
5:10 Paul reckoned with the possibility that he might die. The possibility cannot
be dismissed that in speaking of “‘we’’ in | Thess. 4:15 and 17 Paul was identifying
himself with the last generation without necessarily supposing that he himself be-
longed to it (cf. J. Bonsirven, L’Evangile de Paul, 1948, 338 ff.; L. Morris, The
First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, NLC, 1959, 141 f.). On the other hand,
M. J. Harris believes that 2 Cor. 5 “marks a decisive turning-point in the apostle’s
estimate of his own relation to the Parousia. No longer is his pre-Advent decease a
possibility more hypothetical than real. For the first time — to judge by the extant
Pauline Epistles — he has begun to reckon with the implications of that possibility,
a possibility that has ceased to be a distant reality by becoming a probability”’
923
PRESENT
(2 Corinthians 5:1-10: Watershed in Paul’s Eschatology’’, TB 22, 1971, 39). This
was due to his confrontation with death in Asia (2 Cor. | :8—11). There is also the
possibility that the varying emphases of Paul’s eschatology were affected by the
different polemical situations in which Paul found himself. Thus | Thess. 4:13-18
and 5:10 is addressed to those who need assurance that both the living and dead
believers will be with the Lord, whereas 2 Thess. 2:3 implies the teaching of some
that the day of the Lord is already past and | Cor. 15:12 ff. the denial of the
resurrection. Harris suggests that Paul further modified his own views in 2 Cor.
Whereas he had previously regarded the resurrection of deceased Christians as
transpiring at the Parousia, in 2 Cor. 5 he envisages his own receipt of a spiritual
body, comparable to Christ’s, as occurring at the time of his death (op. cit., 39-45).
And by the time of 2 Cor. he no longer viewed the Christian dead as resting in
“sleep” in the grave or Sheol until the Parousia; he now anticipates conscious
personal communion with Christ in heaven immediately after death (op. cit., 45—
57). Harris believes Paul’s thinking was influenced by the tribulation of 2 Cor. 1:8
and the illness of 2 Cor. 2:12 f.; cf. 7:5.
W. Baird suggests a somewhat different line of approach in ‘‘Pauline Eschatology
in Hermeneutical Perspective’, N7S 17, 1970-71, 312-27. He points out that es-
chatological statements are found throughout most of Paul’s epistles, though
references to a future eschaton are lacking in 2 Cor. 10-13 and are scarce in Gal.
(cf. 5:5, 21; 6:8). The absence of such key eschatological terms as parousia (pre-
sence), orgé (wrath), anastasis (resurrection) and aphtharsia (incorruption) from
these passages suggests that in epistles (or sections of epistles) of sharpest polemic
futurist eschatology plays no major rdle (op. cit., 321). But in fact, no clear pattern
emerges from the contexts of the major eschatological passages in Paul. Rom. 13
and | Thess. 4—5 are set in paraenetic sections, the latter being concerned with care
for the departed (4:18) and edification (5:1). 1 Cor. 15 answers Corinthian ques-
tions concerning the denial of the resurrection (15:12) and its mode (15:34). But
it is also related to ethical concerns (vv. 34 and 58). In 2 Cor. 4:7 ff. and 5:6 ff.
apostolic suffering and exhortation provide the context for discussion about the
body and death. In Phil. 1:25 eschatology is bound up with the fulfilment of Paul’s
mission. There is a polemical note in Phil. 3:2 ff., 19 ff., and exhortation in Phil.
4:1.
Baird argues that just as the contexts of Paul’s eschatological statements display
a variety of interest embracing the paraenetic, the polemical, the pastoral, and the
personal, so does the structure of his eschatological language. Whilst there is a
broad parallelism between | Thess. 4:16 ff. and 1 Cor. 15:23 ff., the sequence of
events is not identical (op. cit., 322). 1 Thess. lists the descent of the Lord (accom-
panied by shout, archangel’s voice and trumpet), the resurrection of the dead and
the catching of those who are alive for meeting the Lord in the air. 1 Cor. lists
the raising of Christ (a past event), the resurrection of those who belong to Christ,
and the end when Christ delivers the kingdom to God. | Thess. distinguishes
between the raising of the dead and the elevation of the living, whereas | Cor.
15:51 speaks of transformation. 1 Cor. 15:23 and 1 Thess. 4:16 link the resurrec-
tion of Christians with the parousia, but the lifting up appears to be slightly later
(1 Thess. 4:15, 17), whereas the whole occurs in a flash in 1 Cor. 15:52. Similarly,
parallels with differences can be found in Phil. 1 and 2 Cor. 5 (op. cit., 323). Baird
924
PRESENT
suggests that a shift of eschatological language may be observed between | Thess. 4
and | Cor. 15, on the one hand, and 2 Cor. 5 and Phil. 1, on the other. The terms
koimaomai (sleep), salpinx (trumpet) and parousia (presence) in an eschatological
sense appear in Paul only in | Thess. and 1 Cor. Phil. 1:22 speaks of “living in the
flesh”? and 2 Cor. 5:2 refers to the heavenly dwelling, and both speak of being with
Christ or the Lord (Phil. 1:23; cf. 2 Cor. 5:8), and of desire (Phil. | :23) and groan-
ing (2 Cor. 5:2, 4) for the new life.
However, the thesis that Paul completely changed his eschatological language
and ideas is confounded by a comparison of | Thess. 5 (as an example of Paul’s
earliest writing) with Rom. 13 (as an example of later thought). For both passages
share a view of the imminent eschaton, using the word kairos (time; Rom. 13:11;
1 Thess. 5:2), the contrast between night and day (1 Thess. 5:4; Rom. 13:12), that
between sleeping and waking (1 Thess. 5:6; Rom. 13:11), and that between drunk-
enness and sobriety (1 Thess. 5:7; Rom. 13:13). The vb. endy6 (put on) is also a
common factor: the Thessalonians are to put on the breastplate of faith and love
and the helmet of the hope of salvation (5:8); the Romans are to put on the armour
of light (13:12; cf. also Eph. 6:11-17).
Just as there are also linguistic shifts between epistles, there are also different
types of language within the same letter. | Thess.4 is one of the most apocalyptic
passages, but it also contains the idea of being with the Lord always (4:17; 5:10),
an idea paralleled in the more ‘Hellenistic’ texts of 2 Cor. 5:8 and Phil. 1:23. i
Cor. 15:51 f. preserves the apocalyptic idea of a trumpet and provides the only
NT instances of atomos (that which cannot be cut in two; en atomo, in a moment)
and rhipé ophthalmou (in the twinkling of an eye). It also expresses the hope of
putting on immortality, a concept parallel to that of being clothed with the heavenly
habitation (2 Cor. 5:2 f.). On the other hand, 2 Cor. 5 which describes the house
eternal in the heavens (5:1) also depicts the apocalyptic judgment seat of Christ
(5:10; cf. Rom. 14:10). Rom. 14:11 cites the prophecy of Isa. 45:23 that every
knee shall bow to Yahweh and every tongue praise him, which Phil. 2:10 applies
christologically and eschatologically.
In addition to these shifts of language, Baird draws attention to the fact that
similar concepts are also expressed in different words (op. cit., 324). The word
parousia is used in an eschatological sense only in | Thess. and | Cor., though Paul
uses it elsewhere of human presence and the idea of the triumphal coming of the
Lord is depicted in other language in 2 Cor. 4:14 and Phil. 3:20. The vb. koimaoé
(sleep) is used as a euphemism for — death in | Thess. 4:13 ff. and 1 Cor. 15:6,
18, 20, 51, but is replaced by analyé (unloose, depart) in Phil. 1:23. The noun
thanatos (death) does not occur in | Thess., but is frequent in the later epistles.
anhistémi (rise) is the distinctive vb. for the resurrection of believers in 1 Thess. 4:14,
16, but is not used elsewhere by Paul to denote future resurrection. egeiré (raise)
is used 15 times in | Cor. 15, but is found only cence in | Thess. (1:10) with reference
to the resurrection of Christ.
Corresponding to this varied use of eschatological language is the wide variety of
contexts in which similar language is found. Baird draws attention to the following
(op. cit., 324 f.). 1 Thess. 4:16 ff. has parallels in Jewish apocalyptic: the descent
of the Lord (Mic. 1:3); the archangel (2 Esd. 4:36); the trumpet (2 Esd. 6:23);
the clouds (SI.Enoch 3:1). The image of the sons of light (1 Thess. 5:5; cf. Rom.
925
PRESENT
13:13) recalls the Qumran War Scroll (1QM). The day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2;
Rom. 2:5; Phil. 1:6, 10) is found in the OT in passages like Amos 5:18; Zech. 14:1;
—> hémera, OT). The judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10) recalls
Eth.Enoch 62:3, 5. Such terms belong to the predominantly Jewish thought-world.
But other ideas have Hellenistic affinities. Putting on the heavenly habitation is
similar to the post-biblical Hymn of the Pearl 82 ff. which speaks of the “bright
embroidered robe”’ which ‘‘was made ready in its home on high”’ (cf. R. M. Grant,
Gnosticism: An Anthology, 1961, 121). Although the fear of nakedness is a Jewish
concept (Isa. 30:4; Mic. 1:8; Ezek. 23:29), the idea of the naked bodiless soul is
found in Plato (Cratylus 403) and Philo (Virt. 76), and the departure of the soul
from the body under the cloud of nakedness is found in the Nag Hammadi gnostic
texts (Gos.Phil. 23 f.; Gos.Thom. 20, 37).
It is not necessary to maintain that Paul was making explicit conscious reference
to all or any of these passages. What they show is not so much literary dependence
as the common currency of ideas in a variety of cultures. In addition to this,
however, Paul may having been drawing on Christian tradition prior to himself.
Thus | Thess. 4:15 ff. is presented as a “‘word of the Lord” (— parousia, NT 2).
Phil. 3:20 f. may express a pre-Pauline hymn. The illustration of the thief in the
night (1 Thess. 5:1) occurs in Matt. 24:43 and Rev. 3:3. Death is personified in
1 Cor. 15:26; Rev. 6:8; 20:13 f.
Baird suggests that the distinctive feature of Paul’s understanding of eschatology
is its variety (op. cit., 325). He does not give a clear, simple apocalyptic picturé of
the end. His language is drawn from external sources and is not used with unifor
emphasis. For in the last analysis Paul is using pictorial language to describe an in-
describable future. He does not have a distinctive “Hellenistic” doctrine of life after
death. There is no clear-cut pattern of development. However, Baird notes the
following constant factors (op. cit., 325 ff.). (i) The death and resurrection of Christ
as the decisive eschatological event has already occurred, and is the basis of the
believer’s own hope and faith (1 Thess. 4:14; 1 Cor. 15:3, 12-24; 2 Cor. 4:14; cf.
Phil. 2:8-11; 3:18, 20 f.; Rom. 8:17). (ii) There will be a future consummation in
which God’s purposes will be fulfilled. This is described in a variety of ways: the
parousia of Christ (1 Thess. 4:15; 1 Cor. 15:23); the judgment seat of Christ (1 Cor.
5:10) or God (Rom. 14:10); the subjecting of all things to Christ (1 Cor. 15:24 ff.;
Phil. 3:21); the universal acknowledgment of Christ (Phil. 2:10 f.); and subjection of
all to God (1 Cor. 15:28). Since the future remains hidden (Rom. 11 : 33-36), precise
description is impossible (cf. Rom. 8:23). (111) The future can be faced with confi-
dence because of oneness with Christ. Again the precise images differ (Rom. 13:14;
1 Cor. 15:23; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 3:21; 1 Thess. 4:17; 5:10). (iv) The- present
is conditioned by the past eschatological occurrence and the hope of future con-
summation. The realized: aspect is apparent only to the eyes of faith. It is also the
ground of exhortation and argument.
The use of particular concepts does not present a uniform development capable
of being traced in a linear trajectory. The course is zig-zag. However, Baird
concedes that there is an overall reduction in the use of apocalyptic language
in the later Pauline writings. But it does not amount to the disappearance of
apocalyptic (op. cit., 327). Corresponding to this, there is an increase in the concern
for the past and the present — a concern which is apparent even in Gal. (cf. 5:1-12;
926
PRESENT
6:7-10) and 2 Cor. 10-13 (cf. 10:3 f.; 11:12-15). At the same time Paul’s thought
becomes increasingly personal and realistic. Euphemisms like “‘sleep” (only in |
Thess. and | Cor.) are reduced, while realistic terms like ‘‘death”’ (not in 1 Thess.,
but more than 20 times in Rom.) and “die” (twice in 1 Thess.; 19 times in Rom.;
7 times in 1 Cor.) are increased (— Death, arts. thanatos and katheudo). Perhaps
the underlying explanation is that death is a present reality which can be described
concretely. As Paul grew older he reflected even more on death in relation to
himself and believers, on the one hand, and Christ’s death, on the other. But
whereas death can be described both literally and metaphorically, the parousia is a
reality to which we have no direct access. It cannot, therefore, be described in
literal language; it can only be discussed in terms of picture and metaphor. In
Paul’s treatment of it he did not make a simple shift from apocalyptic to non-
apocalyptic language. He was using the language and concepts that were available
to him as the common property of himself and his readers. Whilst Paul’s precise
choice of terminology may well have been determined by the way in which the
readers In any given community conceived the eschaton, we cannot rule out a
growing understanding in the mind of Paul. What remains throughout is an aware-
ness of accountability for what we do in this life and the possibility that at any
time the end may come to us, either through death or with the parousia of Christ,
and for this we must be constantly ready.
(d) John. John’s eschatology involves two lines of thought. On the one hand,
there is what R. E. Brown calls the “vertical” and “‘horizontal’’ views of God’s
saving action; and on the other hand, there is the interrelation of realized and
future eschatology (The Gospel According to John, I, Anchor Bible, 1966, cxv—cxx1).
The “horizontal” line traces God’s acts in and through the sequence of history.
Thus the Prologue sees the incarnation of the Word in relation to God’s existence
even before creation (1:1 ff.). In his dialogue with the — Samaritan woman Jesus
sees the whole of history as leading up to the eschatological hour when both
Samaritan worship on Mt. Gerizim and Jewish worship in the temple at Jerusalem
will be superseded (Jn. 4:20 ff.). Moreover, that hour has arrived. “But the hour
is coming, and now 1s, when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and
truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who
worship him must worship him in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:23 f.; — Prayer, art.
proskyneo NT 4). When the woman replies “I know that Messiah is coming (he who
is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things’’, Jesus declares: “I
who speak to you am he” (Jn. 4:25 f.). Similarly the — feasts find their fulfilment
in him (cf. 1:29; 2:13, 23; 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 7:2, 8, 10 f., 14, 37; 11:55 f.; 12:12, 20;
13:1, 29; 18:28, 39; 19:14). Not only the historic traditions of worship but the
scriptures find their fulfilment in Jesus: ““You search the scriptures, because you
think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me”’
(Jn. 5:39). To John everything is leading up to the “‘hour’’ which culminates the
history of God’s dealing with his people (cf. Jn. 2:4; 4:21; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 17:1;
—> Time, art. hora). This has led some critics to suppose that Jn. is only interested
in the “‘hour” of the ministry of Jesus. But R. E. Brown replies that Jn.’s “‘problem
is not whether there will be a ‘time of the Church,’ but how this is related to Jesus”’
(op. cit., cxvi). He presupposes Christian missionary activity (Jn. 4:35-—38; 20:21),
a conflict of Christianity with the world (16:8), an influx of those who have come to
927
PRESENT
believe through the proclamation of the word (17:20), and the gathering of a
flock to be shepherded (11:52; 10:16; 21:15 ff.).
But the acts of God do not operate only on the “‘horizontal’’ plane of history.
The crucial events are seen as a “‘vertical’’ breaking into history. The Son of man
has come down from heaven (3:13). The word has become flesh and dwelt among
us. The culmination of the activity of Jesus will occur when he is lifted up to heaven
in death and resurrection to draw all men to himself (12:32). There is a constant
contrast between the above and the below, the divine realm and the world of men
(3:3, 31; 8:23). There is a sphere that belongs to Spirit and a sphere that belongs
to the flesh (3:6; 6:63). Jesus brings eternal life to a world which in its natural
state is given over to death and judgment (3:16—21; cf. 1:12 f.). Death has no power
over this life (11:25). The life-sustaining gifts which he gives from above are
contrasted with earthly sustenance which has no enduring power: he gives the real
water of life which never fails to satisfy (4:10-14); he is the bread of life, as con-
trasted with the manna in the wilderness that perished (6:27); he is the real light
of the world (3:19).
R. E. Brown thinks that the Johannine integration of the ‘horizontal’? and
“vertical” elements argues against a gnostic interpretation of the Gospel (op. cit.,
cvi). Indeed, it represents a blending of the Hellenistic and Hebrew approaches to
salvation. C. H. Dodd points out that the concept of “eternal life’’ (zdé aidnios) is
not found in pagan religious and philosophical writers until long after the NT
period (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 146). But the concept has
Jewish roots long before this. Life may be thought of as prolonged (Eth.Enoch
10:10) or prolonged after the grave (Dan. 12:2; Test.Ash. 5:2; Pss.Sol. 3:16;
14:6; Eth.Enoch 37:4; 40:9; 2 Macc. 7:9, 14). There is also the doctrine of the
two ages, the present age and the age to come, which is fully developed in 2 Esd. c.
A.D. 100 (7:12 f.; 8:52 ff.; cf. also Eth.Enoch 48:7 with 71:15; Tosefta Peah. 4, 18,
p. 24 [c. A.D. 50]; — Life, art. zoé; — Time, art. aidn). Such references indicate that
Jn.’s eschatological concepts were not a novelty. Rather, his presentation of Christ
in terms of the “‘vertical’’ breaking into the ‘horizontal’? made use of concepts
current within Judaism. The novelty lies not in the concepts themselves but in the
fact that Christ fulfils them.
At this point we may consider the other line of thought to which R. E. Brown,
in common with many other NT scholars, draws attention: the relationship between
realized and future eschatology in Jn. At first sight it might appear that Jn. teaches
a thoroughly realized eschatology. The coming of the — glory of God is something
that is represented as having already come with the incarnation: ‘“‘And the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father” (1:14). The — judgment is decisively
brought forward to the present time: ‘“‘He who believes in him is not condemned; he
who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name
of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the
world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil’”’
(3:18 f.). Whereas Matt. 25:31 ff. represents a future judgment scene, Jn. is not
concerned with the scene itself. He is concerned with the act on which the judgment
turns. Whatever else may follow is ratification of the choices that man makes here
and now. In the Synoptics “eternal life’’ is something that one receives at the last
928
PRESENT
judgment or in a future age. In Jn. it is something that a man enters into here and
now: “Truly, truly I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent
me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to
life’? (5:24). For Lk. sonship is something that one has conferred as a future
reward (Lk. 6:35; 20:36). In Jn. it is entered into here and now: “But to all who
received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God”’
(Jn. 1:12).
But these passages must not be taken in isolation. Even in themselves they are
not a repudiation of futuristic eschatology. Rather, they draw attention to the
eschatological dimension of the present. The whole work, as Brown reminds us
(op. cit., cxviii) was written in a post-resurrection situation. The readers would read
about the new birth and entry into the kingdom (3:5), feeding on the living bread
(6:27, 54, 57), and the life-giving Spirit (6:63; 7:38 f.; 16:7; 19:30; 20:22) in the
light of a belief which extended beyond the plane of the continuously horizontal
present. However, there are a number of passages which contain explicitly futur-
istic elements. Jesus’ reply to Martha in respect of her affirmation of belief in the
raising of her dead brother Lazarus in the resurrection relates it to himself in the
present in a way which admits a future aspect: ‘“‘I am the resurrection and the life;
he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live’ (11:25). The saying about
Jesus’ going away to prepare dwelling places in his Father’s > house implies a
future beyond the present (14:2 f.). At the climax of the high priestly prayer Jesus
intercedes for the future state of the disciples: “‘Father, I desire that they also,
whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which
thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world” (17:24).
From what has been said so far it might be concluded that, while Jn. lays great
emphasis on the eschatological dimension of the present but also hints at its future
dimension, he does so in ways which avoid as far as possible apocalyptic language
and concepts. But there are passages which refer to a second coming, a resurrection
at the end time and the last judgment. Thus in the discourse in Jn. 5 Jesus declares:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear
the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life
in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given
him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at
this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and
come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who
have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (5:25-28). In the middle of the
discourse on the bread of life Jesus declares that he has come to do the will of him
that sent him: ‘‘and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing
of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of
my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day”’ (6:39 f.). This theme is further under-
lined in the same discourse: ‘““No one can come to me unless the Father who sent
me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. .. . He who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (6:44, 54).
Similarly, the public ministry of Jesus reaches its climax with the declaration: ‘“‘He
who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have
spoken will be his judge at the last day” (12:48). This is endorsed by the affirmation
929
PRESENT
that what Jesus has said has been uttered on the authority of the Father and that
his commandment is eternal life’ (12:49 f.).
R. Bultmann deals with these passages by claiming that they are the work of the
evangelist-redactor who inserted them to adapt the theology to the original
Johannine church at large (The Gospel of John, 1971, 219 ff., 229, 233, 260 f., 345).
Brown rejects this on purely literary grounds (op. cit., cxvili; cf. D. M. Smith,
The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel, 1965, 230 ff.). Moreover, he
suggests that if we take Rev. into account to form an overall picture of Johannine
theology, the excision from Jn. of apocalyptic passages is unwarranted. E. Stauffer
explains the emphasis in Jn. on realized eschatology and the hidden messiah as
the work of the evangelist who sought to counter the vulgar apocalyptic elements
that had become current in Christianity since the death of Jesus (““Agnostos Christos:
Joh. ii. 24 und die Eschatologie des vierten Evangeliums”’, in W. D. Davies and
D. Daube, eds., The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, 1954,
281-99). Thus with Dodd, Stauffer believes that Jesus himself taught an eschatology
with a strongly realized emphasis. M.-E. Boismard, however, thinks that the apo-
calyptic passages in Jn. were the earlier and the ones emphasizing the realized
element reflect a later insight (““L’Evolution du Théme eschatologique dans les
Traditions Johanniques’’, RB 68, 1961, 507-24). R. E. Brown believes that the
tension between the realized and apocalyptic elements reflects the tension within
the teaching of Jesus himself which is reflected in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Matt.
10:23; 26:64; Mk. 9:1; 13:30; with Mk. 13:32 f.; Lk. 17:22). “It is a dubious
procedure to excise one or the other group of statements in order to reconstruct a
consistent eschatological view held by Jesus. The recognition that there were both
realized and final elements in Jesus’ own eschatology means that in the subsequent
developments ... the NT writers were not creating ex nihilo theories of realized
or of final eschatology, but were applying to a particular situation one or the other
strain already present in Jesus’ thought” (op. cit., cxix). In fact, both strains were
already present in Judaism. The War Scroll from Qumran (1QM) shows expecta-
tion of a final intervention, but other teaching at Qumran suggests that the com-
munity believed that they already shared in the heavenly gifts, that they were
saved from judgment and enjoyed the companionship of the angels. Brown thinks
that Jn. 21:22 f. (with its attempt to clarify that Jesus did not say that the disciple
in question would not die but rather “If it is my will that he remain until I come,
what is that to you?’’) was included to counter belief that Jesus would return
within the lifetime of the disciples (op. cit., cxx; cf. 2 Pet. 3:4 and the discussion
of Mk. 13:30 above). He also allows for the possibility of redaction.
Perhaps the best explanation of the eschatological emphases of Jn. is to recognize
that it contains in tension the same elements as the Synoptic Gospels, but that stress
on the eschatological dimension of the present is laid in view of the current apo-
calyptic beliefs canvassed in Judaism at a time when the existence of Judaism is
under threat and the fall of Jerusalem is imminent. Jn.’s equivalent of the warr. igs
in the apocalyptic discourse in the Synoptics about false Christs and wars is to
stress the “now” of the Christ-event. His equivalent to the warnings of judgment
on Jerusalem in the Synoptics is to speak about judgment here and now and depict
the conduct of the Jews. It falls outside the scope of this note to discuss the rela-
tionship between Jn. and Rev. But if they were the work of the same author or even
930
PRESENT
reflected a basic underlying Johannine theological standpoint, it could be that the
eschatology of Jn. and Rev. is to be understood as being complementary. The
fourth Gospel stresses especially the eschatological dimension of the present in the
light of the advent of Christ; Rev. stresses the eschatological dimension of history
in the light of the advent of Christ. But in neither case can the present be divorced
from the future, and in both cases the decisive factor is Christ. (For discussion of
the eschatology of Rev. — Number, arts. hepta and chilias. Here it is argued that
the number “‘seven’’ provides the key to the structure of the book in terms of seven
parallel but cumulative visions of history culminating in the vision of the new —
Jerusalem, corresponding to the seven days of creation of Gen. 1. The question of
the millennium is also discussed.) C. Brown
—» Abomination of Desolation, — Antichrist, — Heaven, — Hell, — Judgment, —
King, Kingdom, — Number, — Sabbath, — Time
On hémera and eschatology in the OT:
(a). L. Cerny, The Day of Yahweh and Some Relevant Problems, 1948; A. J. Everson, ““The Days
of Yahweh’’, JBL 93, 1974, 329-37; F. C. Fensham, ‘‘A Possible Origin of the Concept of the Day
of the Lord”, Biblical Essays, 1966, 90-97; F. V. Filson, ‘‘ Yesterday’: A Study of Hebrews in the
Light of Chapter 13, SBT Second Series 4, 1967; H. Gross, ‘““Day of Yahweh’’, EBT I 179 ff.; L.
Hartman, ‘‘The Functions of Some So-Called Apocalyptic Timetables”, N7‘S, 22 1975-76, 1-14;
J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, 1962, 316 ff.; F. R. McCurley, “‘ ‘And after Six Days’
(Mark 9:2): A Semitic Literary Device’, JBL 93, 1974, 67-81; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh,
1956; and The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, \-Il, 1962; G. von Rad, ‘“‘The Origin of the Day of
Yahweh’’, JSS 4, 1959, 97-108; and Old Testament Theology, II, 1965, 119-25; G. von Rad, and
G. Delling, hémera, TDNT II 943-53; H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old
Testament, 1946, 135-47; W. Rordorf, Sunday. The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the
Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church, 1968; H. H. Rowley, ‘““The Day of the Lord’’, in The
Faith of Israel; Aspects of Old Testament Thought, 1956, 177-201; D. S. Russell, The Method and
Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 B.c.-A.D. 100, 1964; N. H. Snaith, “‘“Time in the Old Testa-
ment’’, in F. F. Bruce, ed., Promise and Fulfilment: Essays Presented to Professor S. H. Hooke,
1963, 175-86; S. J. DeVries, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testa-
ment, 1975; T. C. Vriezen, Prophecy and Eschatology, Supplements to VT 1, 1953; 199-229, M.
Weiss, ‘““The Origin of the ‘Day of the Lord’ Reconsidered’’, Hebrew Union College Annual 37,
1966, 29-60.
(b). J. Bourke, ‘‘Le Jour de Yahvé dans Joél’’, RB 66, 1959, 5-31 and 191-212; W. Bousset,
Die Religion des Judentums im spathellenistischen Zeitalter, 19267, 202 ff.; H. Gressmann, Der
Ursprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Eschatologie, FRLANT 6, 1905; and Der Messias, FRLANT
43,1929; S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament, 1965; G. H6lscher,
Die Urspriinge der jtidischen Eschatologie, 1925; E. Jenni, ‘Das Wort ‘6lam in Alten Testament’’,
ZAW 64, 1952, 197-248; 65, 1953, 1-35; and yé6m, THAT 1 707-26; R. Largement and H. Lemaitre,
‘‘Le Jour de Yahvé dans le Contexte Oriental’, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Lovaniensium, XII,
1959. Sacra Pagina, Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica, I,
159-66; H.-M. Lutz, Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Volker, 1968, 130-46; S. Mowinckel, ‘“‘Jahves
Dag’’, Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift 59, 1958, 1-56, 209-29; H.-P. Miller, Urspriinge und Strukturen
alttestamentlicher Eschatologie, BZAW 109, 1969; G. von Rad, Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel,
1949; SBI 953; II 812 ff.; K.-D. Schunck, “‘Strukturlinien in der Entwicklung der Vorstellung vom
Tag Jahwes’’, VT 14, 1964, 319 ff.; C. Steuernagel, “Die Strukturlinien der Entwicklung der
juidischen Eschatologie”’, Bertholet Festschrift, 1950, 479 ff.; P. Volz, Jiidische Eschatologie von
Daniel bis Akiba, 1903; and Die Eschatologie der jtidischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen
Zeitalter, 1934.
On maranatha:
(a). W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, “Two Texts in I Corinthians’’, NTS 16, 1969-70, 271-76;
M. Black, ‘“The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 15 (I Enoch 1:9)’’, in B. Lindars and S. S.
931
PRESENT
Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule,
1973, 189-96; G. Bornkamm, ‘‘The Anathema in the Early Christian Lord’s Supper Liturgy”’.
Early Christian Experience, 1969, 169-79; W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 1970; R. Bultmann,
Theology of the New Testament, 1, 1952, 52; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament,
1959, 210 ff.; W. Dunphy, ‘““Maranatha: Development in Early Christianity’, Irish Theological
Quarterly 37, 1970, 294 ff.; J. A. Emerton, ‘‘“MARANATHA and EPHPHATHA’’, JTS New Series 18,
1967, 427-31; W. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, SBT 50, 99-107; K. G. Kuhn, maranatha,
TDNT IV 466-72; R. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, SBT Second
Series 17, 1970, 121-24; C. F. D. Moule, ‘‘A Reconsideration of the Context of Maranatha’, NTS
6, 1959-60, 307-10.
(b). J. Betz, ‘“Die Eucharistie in der Didache’’, Archiv fiir Liturgiewissenschaft 9, 1969, 26 ff.,
34 ff.; B. Botte, Noél-Epiphanie, Retour du Christ, 1967, 25-42; E. Peterson, HEIS THEOS, 1926; S.
Schultz, ‘““Maranatha und Kyrios Jesus’, ZNW 53, 1962, 125-44.
On parousia and eschatology in the NT:
(a). A. W. Argyle, ““Does ‘Realized Eschatology’ Make Sense?”, Hibbert Journal 51, 1952-53,
385 f.; J. W. Bailey, “The Temporary Messianic Reign in the Literature of Early Judaism”, JBL
52, 1934, 170 ff.; W. Baird, ‘‘Pauline Eschatology in Hermeneutical Perspective’, NTS 17, 1970-
71, 314-27; R. F. Barkey, “‘engizein, phthanein and Realized Eschatology’, JBL 82, 1963, 17Kff.;
C. K. Barrett, ““New Testament Eschatology’, SJT 6, 1953, 136-55 and 235-43; ‘“‘The Haly
Spirit in the Fourth Gospel’, JTS New Series 1, 1950, 1-15; ‘“‘The Place of Eschatology in the
Fourth Gospel’, ExpT 59, 1947-48, 302-5; The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, 1947; The
Gospel according to St. John, 1955; Luke the Historian in Recent Research, (1963) 1970; The Fis
Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1968; The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1973;
H.-W. Bartsch, ed., Kerygma and Myth, I and II in combined volume, 1972; W. A. Beardslee,
‘‘Was Jesus More Optimistic than Paul?” Journal of Biblical Religion 24, 1956, 264-68; G. R.
Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future: An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological
Discourse, Mark 13, with Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory, 1954; A Commentary
on Mark 13, 1957; ‘“‘A Century of Eschatological Discussion’, ExpT 64, 1952-53, 312-16; and
The Book of Revelation, New Century Bible, 1974; G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, 1972;
E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, BNTC, 1972; O. Betz, ““The Kerygma
of Luke’’, Interpretation 22, 1968, 131-46; H. Bietenhard, ‘‘The Millennial Hope in the Early
Church’’, SJT 6, 1953, 12-30; G. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 1960; Paul, 1971; G. Bornkamm,
G. Barth and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1963; W. Bousset, Kyrios
Christos, 1970; J. W. Bowman, The Intention of Jesus, 1945; and ‘‘From Schweitzer to Bultmann’’,
Theology Today 11, 1954, 160-78; R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1, 1966; II, 1971;
J. E. Bruns, “The Use of Time in the Fourth Gospel’, NTS 13, 1966-67, 285-90; R. Bultmann,
Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1960; History and Eschatology: The Presence of Eternity, 1957;
“History and Eschatology in the New Testament’’, NTS 1, 1954-55, 5 ff.; The Gospel of John:
A Commentary, 1971; G. B. Caird, ‘““Eschatology and Politics: Some Misconceptions’’, in J. R.
McKay and J. F. Miller, eds., Biblical Studies: Essays in Honour of William Barclay, 1976, 72-
86; R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism
and in Christianity 19137; and Religious Development between the Testaments, 1914; K. W.
Clarke, ‘“‘Realized Eschatology”, JBL 59, 1940, 367 ff.; W. K. Lowther Clarke, ‘““The Clouds of
Heaven: An Eschatologica] Study’’, Theology 31, 1935, 63 ff. and 128 ff.; H. Conzelmann, The Theo-
logy of St Luke, 1960; and “‘Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity’’, in L. E. Keck
and J. L. Martyn, eds., op. cit., 298-316; A. Correll, Consumatum Est: Eschatology and Church in the
Gospel of St. John, 1958; C. T. Craig, ‘‘Realized Eschatology’, JBL 56, 1937, 17 ff.; O. Cullmann,
Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, 1951; Immortality of
the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? The Witness of the New Testament, 1958; The Christology of
the New Testament, 1959; ““The Return of Christ”, in The Early Church, 1956, 141-62; Salvation
in History, 1967; W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., The Background of the New Testament and its
Eschatology: In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1954; A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient
East, 1911", 372 ff.; G. Delling, kolobod, TDNT III 823 ff.; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the
Kingdom, 1936; The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 1936; History and the Gospel,
1938; The Coming of Christ, 1952; The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953; Historical
Tradition and the Fourth Gospel, 1963; The Founder of Christianity, 1970; New Testament Studies.
932
PRESENT
1953; More New Testament Studies, 1968; J. W. Drane, ‘‘Eschatology, Ecclesiology and Catho-
licity in the New Testament’, ExpT 83, 1971-72, 180-84; G. Ebeling, ‘‘Time and Word”’, in J. M.
Robinson, ed., The Future of Our Religious Past: Essays in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann, 1971,
247-66; E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, New Century Bible, 1966; ‘II Corinthians v. 1-10 in
Pauline Eschatology’, NTS 6, 1959-60, 211-24; ‘‘Present and Future Eschatology in Luke: For
W. G. Kimmel on his Sixtieth Birthday’, NTS 12, 1965-66, 27-41; and Eschatology in Luke,
Facet Books, Biblical Series 30, 1972; H. Flender, St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History,
1967; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to
Himself and His Mission, 1971; F. O. Francis, ‘““Eschatology and, History in Luke-Acts’’, Journal
of the American Academy of Religion 37, 1969, 49-63; E. Franklin, ““The Ascension and the
Eschatology of Luke-Acts”, SJT 23, 1970, 191-200; and Christ the Lord: A Study in the Purpose
and Theology of Luke-Acts, 1975; E. Fuchs, “‘Jesus’ Understanding of Time’’, in Studies of the
Historical Jesus, SBT 42, 1964, 104-66; R. W. Funk, “The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Signifi-
cance’, in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr, eds., Christian History and Inter-
pretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, 1967, 249-68; W. W. Gasque, ‘“‘The Historical Value of
the Book of Acts: An Essay in the History of New Testament Criticism’, EQ 41, 1969, 68-88;
L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic
Gospels, Supplements to NovT 23, 1970; T. F. Glasson, The Second Advent: The Origin of the New
Testament Doctrine, 1947*; His Appearing and His Kingdom: The Christian Hope in the Light of
its History, 1953; G. Gloege, The Day of His Coming: The Man in the Gospels, 1963; K. Grayston,
“The Study of Mark XIII’, BJRL 56, 1973-74, 371-78; N. Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and
Eschatology in Paul, SJT Occasional Papers 6, 1957; M. J. Harris, ‘“‘2 Corinthians 5:1-10;
Watershed in Paul’s Eschatology?’ TB 22, 1971, 32-57; and ‘‘Resurrection and Immortality:
Eight Theses”, Themelios 1, 1976, 50-55; L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Function
of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13 par., Coniec-
tanea Biblica, New Testament Series 1, 1966; R. H. Hiers, ‘““The Problem of the Delay of the
Parousia in Luke-Acts”, NZS 20, 1973-74, 145-55; W. F. Howard, Christianity according
to St John, 1943, 106-28; and The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation, revised
by C. K. Barrett, 1955; E. Kasemann, “An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology”’,
in Essays on New Testament Themes, SBT 41, 1964, 169-95; and ‘‘On the Subject of Primitive
Christian Apocalyptic,” in New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 108-37; L. E. Keck and
J. L. Martyn, eds., Studies in Luke-Acts, 1968; J. M. Kik, Matthew Twenty-Four, 1948 (re-
printed in An Eschatology of Victory, 1971); W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment: The
Eschatological Message of Jesus, SBT 23, 1961; ‘“‘Eschatological Expectation in the Proclama-
tion of Jesus’’, in J. M. Robinson, ed., op. cit., 29-48; The New Testament: The History of the
Investigation of its Problems, 1973; and “‘Futuristic and Realized Eschatology in the Earliest
Stages of Christianity’, JR 43, 1963, 303-14; G. E. Ladd, Jesus and the Kingdom, 1966; and
*‘Apocalyptic and the New Testament Theology’’, in R. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope: New
Testament Essays ... Presented to L. L. Morris, 1974, 285-96; J. Lowe, ‘“‘An Examination of
Attempts to Detect Developments in St. Paul’s Theology’’, JTS 42, 1941, 129-42; G. Lundstr6m,
The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: A History of Interpretation, 1963; G.T. Manley, The
Return of Christ, 1960; T. W. Manson, ‘‘Realized Eschatology and the Messianic Secret’, in
D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, 1955, 209-22;
W. Manson, G. W. Lampe, T. F. Torrance and W. A. Whitehouse, Eschatology, SJT Occasional
Papers 2, 1953; J. Marsh, The Fulness of Time, 1952; 1. H. Marshall, Eschatology and the Parables,
1963; Luke: Historian and Theologian, 1970; and ‘“‘Martyrdom and the Parousia’’, StudEv IV, 1,
1968, 333-39; W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel,
1969, 151-206; P. S. Minear, ‘““The Time of Hope in the New Testament’’, S/T 6, 1953, 337-61;
J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and Implications of a Christian Theology, 1967;
Hope and Planning, 1971; Theology and Joy, 1973; and The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ
as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, 1974; A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the
New Testament, Supplements to NovT 13, 1966; and J and 2 Thessalonians, New Century Bible,
1969; L. Morris, The First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, NLC, 1969; C. F. D. Moule,
“The Influence of Circumstances on Eschatological Terms”, JTS New Series 15, 1964, 1-15,
R. H. Mounce, “Pauline Eschatology and the Apocalypse’, EQ 46, 1974, 164 ff.; A. Oepke;
parousia etc., TDNT V 858-71; J. J. O'Rourke, “The Historical Present in the Gospel of John’’,
JBL 93, 1974, 585-90; R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, 1938; H. P. Owen, ‘‘The
933
PRESENT
Parousia in the Synoptic Gospels’, SJT 12, 1959, 171-92; E. Pax, ‘‘Parousia”’, EBT II 633-38; W.
Pannenberg, Jesus —- God and Man, 1968; Basic Questions in Theology, I-III, 1970-73; ‘‘Focal
Essay: The Revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth’, in J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb, eds.,
Theology as History, New Frontiers in Theology, 111, 1967, 101-33; W. Pannenberg, ed., Revelation
as History, 1969; N. Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus: A History of Interpreta-
tion from the Last Decades of the Nineteenth Century to the Present Day, 1963; Rediscovering the
Teaching of Jesus, 1967; ‘“‘Eschatology and Hemeneutics: Reflections on Method in the Interpreta-
tion of the New Testament”, JBL 93, 1974, 3-14; and Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom:
Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation, 1976; H. S. Reimarus, The Goal of Jesus and
his Disciples, tr. G. W. Buchanan, 1970; and Fragments, ed. C. H. Talbert and R. S. Fraser, 1971;
J. A. T. Robinson, In the End God. . ., (1950) 1968?; and Jesus and His Coming: The Emergence of a
Doctrine, 1957; J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, 1968; E. C. Rust, ‘‘Time
and Eternity in Biblical Thought’, Theology Today, 10, 1953, 327-56; and Towards a Theological
Understanding of History, 1963; R. Schnackenburg, God’s Rule and Kingdom, 1963; The Church in
the New Testament, 1965; Present and Future, 1966; A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical
Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, (1910) 19548; Paul and his Inter-
preters: A Critical History, 1912; The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, 1914; The Psychiatric Study
of Jesus, 1968; The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity, 1968; R. B. Y. Scott, ‘‘Behold he
Cometh with the Clouds”, NTS 5, 1958-59, 127-32; S.S. Smalley, ‘““The Theatre of Parousia’’,
SJT 17, 1964, 406-13; R. H. Smith, ‘‘The Eschatology of Acts and Contemporary Exegesis’,
Concordia Theological Monthly 29, 1958, 641-63; and ‘“‘History and Eschatology in Luke-Acts’’,
ibid., 881-901; W. Stott, ““A Note on the Word KyRIAKE in Rev. i. 10”, NTS 12, 1965-66, 70-75;
K. A. Strand, ‘“‘Another Look at ‘Lord’s Day’ in the Early Church and in Rev. i1.10’’, NTS 13, 1966—
1967, 174-81; W. Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life, 1959; T. F. Torrance, When Christ Comes
and Comes Again, 1957; G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, 1952; J. Weiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of
the Kingdom of God, 1971; D. Wenham, ‘‘Recent Study of Mark 13: Part 1”, TSF Bulletin 71,
1975, 6-15; ‘“‘Recent Study of Mark 13: Part 2”, ibid. 72, 1975, 1-9; M. Werner, The Formation
of Christian Dogma, 1957; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, 19742; A. N. Wilder,
Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus, revised edition 1950; Kerygma, Eschatology, and
Social Ethics, Facet Books, Social Ethics Series 12, 1966 (reprinted from W. D. Davies and D.
Daube, eds., op. cit., 509-36); and ‘‘Eschatology and the Speech-Modes of the Gospel’’, in E.
Dinkler, ed., Zeit und Geschichte Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag, 1964, 19-
30; S. G. Wilson, ‘‘Lukan Eschatology”, NTS 16, 1969-70, 330-47.
(b). P. Althaus, Die letzten Dinge, 1949°; J. Blank, Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie
und Eschatologie, 1964; M.-E. Boismard, ‘‘L’Evolution du Théme eschatologique dans les
Traditions Johanniques’’, RB 68, 1961, 507-24; H.-W. Bartsch, ‘‘Zum Problem der Parusiever-
zogerung bei den Synoptikern”, EvTh 19, 1959, 116 ff.; G. Bornkamm, ‘‘Die VerzoOgerung der
Parusie”’, in W. Schmauch, ed., Jn Memoriam E. Lohmeyer, 1951, 116 ff.; and ‘“‘Enderwartung und
Kirche im Matthdusevangelium’’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., op. cit., 222-60; W.
Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im spathellenistischen Zeitalter, ed. H. Gresssmann 19263;
H. Braun, “‘Der Sinn der neutestamentlichen Christologie’, Z7K 54, 341 ff.; R. Bultmann,
““Geschichte und Eschatologie im Neuen Testament”, Glauben und Verstehen, I11, 1960, 91 ff.;
F. Buri, Die Bedeutung der neutestamentlichen Eschatologie fiir die neuere protestantische Theologie,
1935; F. Busch, Zum Verstdndnis der synoptischen Eschatologie. Markus 13 neu untersucht, 1938;
T. Colani, Jésus Christ et les Croyances Messianiques de son Temps, 18647; H. Conzelmann,
‘““Eschatologie, IV”, RGG? II 665 ff.; and ‘‘Parusie’’, RGG*® V 130 ff.; O. Cullmann, ‘“‘Das wahre
durch die ausgebliebene Parusie gestellte neutestamentliche Problem’, ThZ 3, 1947, 177 ff.
(reprinted in Vortrdge und Aufsdtze, 1967, 414 ff.); ““Parusieverz6gerung und Christentum — der
gegenwartige Stand der Diskussion”, TLZ 83, 1958, 21 ff. (reprinted in op. cit., 427 ff.); and
“L’Evangile Johannique et l’Histoire du Salut’, NTS 11, 1964-65, 111-22; G. Delling, Das
Zeitverstandnis des Neuen Testaments, 1940; M. Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher, 1937° (excursus
on | Thess. 2:19); J. Dupont, Syn Christdé, 1952, 55 ff.; E. E. Ellis, ““Die Funktion der Eschatologie
im Lukasevangelium”, ZTK 66, 1969, 387-402 (English version revised in Facet Book noted
above); G. Gloege, Reich Gottes und Kirche im Neuen Testament, 1929; E. Grasser, Das Problem
der Parusieverzégerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte, BZNW 22,
1957; H. Greeven, ‘“‘Kirche und Parusie Christi’, KuD 10, 1964, 113 ff.; L. van Hartingveld, Die
Eschatologie des Johannesevangeliums, 1962; J. Korner, ‘“‘Endgeschichtliche Parusieerwartung im
934
PRESENT
Neuen Testament und ihrer Bedeutung fiir eine christliche Theologie’, EvTh 14, 1954, 177 ff.;
H. W. Kuhn,: Enderwartung und gegenwartiges Heil, Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 4,
1966; W. G. Kiimmel, ‘“‘Luc en Accusation dans la Théologie Contemporaine’’, Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses 46, 1970, 265-81; Kirchenbegriff und Geschichtsbewusstsein in der Urge-
meinde und bei Jesus, 1943; and ‘‘Futuristische und prasentische Eschatologie im altesten Urchris-
tentum”, NTS 5, 1958-59, 113-26; J. Lambrecht, Die Redaktion der Markus-Apokalypse.
Literarische Analyse und Strukturuntersuchung, Analecta Biblica 28, 1967; E. Lohmeyer, Das
Evangelium des Markus, KEK 1/2, 19671"; E. Lohse, ‘‘Lukas als Theologe der Heilsgeschichte’’,
EyTh 14, 1954, 256 ff.; and “‘Zur neutestamentlichen Eschatologie’’, Verkiindigung und Forschung,
1956, 184 ff.; W. Michaelis, Der Herr verzieht nicht die Verheissung, 1942; and ‘‘Kennen die
Synoptiker eine Verz6gerung der Parusie?”’, Synoptische Studien fiir A. Wikenhauser, 1953, 107 ff.;
R. Morgenthaler, Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis. Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst
Lukas, \|-II, AThANT 14-15, 1949; E. Pax, Epiphaneia, 1955, 208-44; R. Pesch, Naherwartungen
Tradition und Redaktion in Markus 13, 1968; P. Ricca, Die Eschatologie des vierten Evangeliums,
1966; F. J. Schierse ‘“‘Himmelssehnsucht und Reich-Gottes-Erwartung’’, Geist und Leben 26,
1953, 189-201; E. Schweizer, ““Der Menschensohn’’, ZNW 50, 1959, 185 ff. (reprinted in Neo-
testamentica, 1963, 56 ff.); J. A. Sint, ‘“Parusie-Erwartung und Parusie-Verz6gerung im paulini-
schen Briefkorpus”’, Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie 86, 1964, 47 ff.; B. Stahlin, ‘‘Zum Problem
der johanneischen Eschatologie”’, ZNW 33, 1934, 225-59; E. Stauffer, ‘‘Agnostos Christos: Joh.
ii. 24 und die Eschatologie des vierten Evangeliums’’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., op. cit.,
281-99; A. Strobel, Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen Verzégerungsproblem, 1961; P. Viel-
hauer, ‘‘Gottesreich und Menschensohn’’, Festschrift fiir G. Dehn, 1957, 51 ff. (reprinted in
Aufsdadtze zum Neuen Testament, ThB 31, 1965, 55 ff.); G. Voss, Die Christologie der lukanischen
Schriften in Grundziigen, Studia Neotestamentica 2, 1965; H. E. Weber, ‘“‘Eschatologie’ und
“Mystik” im Neuen Testament, 1930; H.-D. Wendland, Die Eschatologie des Reichs Gottes bei
Jesus, 1931.
935
’"abal §=422f.
"abba 867, 869, 896
"abib 675
"adam 160, 502, 564, 571
-adamah 564
"adarkonim 848
’adé6n 509, 511 f., 562, 590
"4donay 69, 71, 512
"agam = 423
"ah =739
"ahab 6551
"ah"bah 105, 539, 547
"ah*bat hesed 105
"*hadim 716
"ahar $5Sf.
"ahat 716f., 720
’ah*rit hayyamim 56
’"ah’rén 61
"ahéb 539, 547
"thiyGh 521
"*hiyahi 521
"akal 268
’al*pé yisra’el 698
’allip 698
"amal 422
"aman 837
"amar 488
"anadh 423
‘dnah 423
"anaq 423
"4naqgah 423
"ani 278
"ant hi’? 279
"nf YHWH 278
"anoki =278
"ares 456
"asam 406
"asap §=32
“sar 732
*asar 732
“Ser 68, 888
‘assapim 555
ata’ 895
"azar 222
"ébel 422
"eby6n 820-822, 829
"ehad 498, 716, 720, 725
"ehyeh "Ser ’ehyeh 68
"el 67, 70, 86f., 304 f.
’elep 698
"eli 82, 637
Index of Hebrew
and Aramaic Words
"élleh 739
’€l6ah 67, 70
’e€lohéni + 720
’elohim 67, 70, 502, 591
’eldi 82
"€met 119
"én mispar 683
"én géseh 683
"€ndS 562, 564
"eppattah 560, 729
’erek ‘appayim 769
"eres 209
"esba‘ 150
"eset ba“*lat-6b 554
’etpattah 560, 729
"tkabéd 45
tS 562, 564, 571, 739
"i§SGh =587
*itter 414
*ittim 555
’"mn 837
’6r 488, 496
*Osar 830
’6t ~=6350, 501, 626 f., 629, 634
’oLtdt imdp tim 627
°zn 175
‘abad 164, 876
‘al habbayit 254
‘alah 185
‘al’ma@ 514
‘almaéh 87
‘am 456, 789f., 792 f., 796—-
801
‘am h@’ares 456, 801, 805
‘am s°gullah 839 f.
‘am YHWH 796
‘amad 136
‘ammi 796
‘ammim 790, 792, 799
‘amoq 197
‘anag 735
‘anah 175, 179, 260, 468, 821
‘anadw 257, 829
“4nawah 260, 264
‘ani 257f., 820-822, 829
‘aniw’ebyén 822
“*niyyim 829
‘agab 431
‘arGh 854
‘asah s°daqgah 597
‘asar 693
“sarah 234
‘as*mii missapper 683
‘asir 841
‘asiig 138
‘atar 862f.
‘atéq 714
‘awat 370
‘awon 138
‘ayep 265
‘ayin 501
‘“azabtani 82
‘ebed 164
‘éber 305
‘eden 761
‘erabén 39
‘eSeb 211
‘ezer 576, 637
‘tbri 305
‘immanii el 86
‘ir 802
‘6lam 67, 105, 514, 931
‘orlat lebab 184
‘oSer 841
‘oz 602
‘6z 602
‘sr 841
ba‘al 511, 562, 677
ba‘al habayit 510
bad 723
bad b*bad yihyeh 723
badad 723
baheret 465
bakah 416, 422
bala‘ 677
balah 714
balal 649
bamaéh 199, 205
bammeh 116
bamét 199
banah 251
bagaSs 164
bar 144, 331
barak 778
barzel 97
basadr 477, 565, 571
bat qgél 174
batah 240
bayit 247, 254, 256, 510
bayyém hah? 890
937
INDEX OF HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WorRDS
b’ah*rit hayyamim 56
b*ki 416
ben-"adam 502
b*né 652
b®né yisrad’él 791
b*rakah 779
bfrit 600
b®riyyadh h*dasah 672
b*selem’*lohim 292
b*seém 650, 652, 656
b°soradh 108 f.
bétah TTT
bér’él 67
b*yad 149
beten 599
bi 860
biglal 116
bikkiirim 675
bim*’te mat 683
bin 397, 616
bisra’ 532
bissar 108 f.
bé’ 898
bégeret 588
b6k 416
da‘at 391, 397, 616
dabaq 349
dabar 173,512
dakah 260
daka’ 260
dakka’ 261
dal 260, 820, 822
dalal 260
damaéh 501
darak 369
daras 489, 554
dark*ménim 848
dat 439, 441
delet 30
d°’m@ 532
d°’mit 287, 501 f.
dese’ 211
dibré ham®’orét 512
diléh 840
din 363
dober 586
dor 35f.
dores el hammétim 554
dimiyyah 669
gabah 199, 20]
gadal 201, 369
gadél 425
galah 212
gan 761
gannah 761
gat s°*mané 710
gdl 425
gé hinnom 208
g°bir 511
g°birah 602
ge°birét 602f.
gediilah 116
938
gehinnam 208
g*mar haqgés_ 61
ger 636
getrah 602
gibbér 562, 602
gibbérim 602
gil 353, 356
gillilim 284 f.
goral 296, 298
gdéy 790-792, 796, 805
goyim 790-793
gip 730
gupa 532
gir Q\
haggadah 522
hahozim bakkékabim 555
halak 777, 815
halal 422, 862
hal‘li-yaéh 862
hamah 423
ham®’orét 512
hamén 800, 842
haqqgés ha’ah*rén 61
hattahtit 209
hayy6m 890
he’®zin 175
hedyét 456
hélel 495
héroén 423
hiqtir 293
histah*wah 862, 876
hittir 732
hépia‘ 735
hi? 279
hwh_ 68
hwy 68
haba’ 214
h*bérim 810
h*birah 810
hadas 670, 675
hag h*missim yém 783
hag sabu‘é6t 783
hakah 239, 772 f.
hakam 616
h*kam h*rasim 555
halah 164, 860
halaq 116
h'misi 303
hanéep 468
hanan 594, 778, 860
hap 144
haraq 421
h*rasim 555
hart6m 555
hartummim 555
hartiis 95
hascGh 91
hasaGh 240
hasid 237f., 600f.
h*sidim 237, 810
hasir 211
haSmal 97
hay 477
hayaéh 477, 483
hayil 602, 800, 842
hayyah 478 f.
hayyim 477
hazah 395
hazaq 154, 767
hbwrh 814
hebel 298
heka 848
he?Gh 27
héleq 298, 303
helqah 303
heméh 27
hén 116f., 123, 356, 600, 815
heres 555
hesed 105, 116f., 119, 123 f.,
237, 540, 550, 594 f., 600 f.
hezyon 622
hidah 745
hillél 224
hinnam 41
Ann 117, 123, 598
héb 666-668
hébah_ 667
hébér habér 554
hdbré samayim 555
hol 224
honak 815
hédq 439 f.
hqq 573
hib 370
huqqah 439, 441
huqqot 441
kabéd 45-47, 49, 336, 485,
502
kahan 234
kahas 470, 474
kala’ 222
kalah 60
kallah 584
kammon 211
kana‘ 260
kara‘ 876
kar6éz 682
karpas 522
kasal 705, 707
kasér 452
kdazab 471
kbd 52
ke 498, 501
k*erki 498
kebes 410, 412
k*layét 181
k*mispat 437
k*mé 501
kesep 96
khd 215
kissa@h 212
kisse’? 612
kissép 555
k6%h 602
kéah 602
kohén 234
koéhén-sedeq 591
konam 43
kpr 294
kal = 773
kiin 69, 489
la‘*nah 27, 663
lahas 807
lahas 807
laha§ 554
lamah 82
lam®nasséah 60
lanesah 60
lappid 485
[© 502, 876
l*“ummim 793
léb 181 f., 184, 565
lébab 177, 181, 184, 565
l‘bad 723
l°¢badad 723
l°bénah 293
lehem 521
legah TT7
l°§ém 652, 655
l¢§ém hassém 652
l°sém S@€mayim 652
léwi 466
lidé 149
lo’ ‘ammi 581, 797
lo kihédi 489
lo’ ruhamaéh 581
lot 294
la 666
li” 666
ma“maqqim 197
ma‘asér 693
ma‘6n 586
mahah 773
malak 373
mal®kiit 376, 389
mal*kit Samayim 376
mal*kit YHWH 376
malki-sedeq 590
mamon 836
mamonad 836
mana’ 222
manaéh 303
maptéah 730
maqgom 191, 369
mar 513
mara 511, 514
mara’ ’ata’ Cate’) 897
maran 513, 895
maran "ta 895
maranad 895
maranad ta 895
mare 513 f.
mare ‘al°’ma 514
mari 513 f.
mar6m 199
masah 335
masah 636
masal 202, 744-746, 757 f.
masal 518
masiah 334 f.
INDEX OF HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WORDS
moséq 663
matla 745
m°iirah 586
mat 428
mat mé*lohim 502
m*“onah 586
m“6nen 554
mbassér 109
mbukadh 416
m*kassep 554
m'lah*sim 554
melek 375 f., 390
memSalah 607 f.
m&nahes 554
ménat 303
mrorah 27
msitha 334 f.
m&sora’ 464
msiilah 197
mstigah 663
middaéh 683
midrak 369
migdal 369
mihyah 169
miksah 683
miksél 705, 707
mille’ 60
mill@?im 61
min 312
min 35, 501
minhaéh 41
minyan 683
migdas 224
migqneh 837
miqweh 773
miskab 586 f.
kiskén 822
miskénut 822
mispahah 698
mispar 683
mispat 777
mispahaéh 789
misteh 576
mlk 389
mohar 578
molek 375
mopet 350, 627, 633
moges 705, 707
mor 294
mor 294
moseh 635
na’ 860
na@ah 669
naap 582
n@aq 423
naweh 668
nad‘al 730
n
naga§ 53, 349
nahla4h 298, 300
naham 421
naham 423
nakeh 414
napal 863
napas 33 f.
nagi 144
nasa’ 201
nasa panim 622
nasa 666
nasak 854
nasaq 876
nasar 132, 134, 349
nasi’ 562
natah 199
natan 41, 69, 367, 587
nazir 224
n’agah 423 f.
n?’um YHWH 173
nebrasta’ 485
néder 41
n°hoset 97
nepeS 158, 181, 477 f., 565
n°gébah 569
nes 350
neser 333
nin’weh 679
nipla’6t 622
noah 681
no‘am 485
nokri 742
noéra’ 622
nosri 333
nsrt 333 f.
niah 681
nid 422 f.
pa‘ah 767
pa‘am 716
pala’ 622
palal 862f.
panim 622
pagah 726
parah 128
paras 810
pardés 761
paris 810
parzel 97
pasah 726
patah 458
patah 726
patbag 521
peh 726
p‘listim 124
p*quddah 684,777
p*risayya 810
petah 29f.
p*tah 560, 729
pisséah 415
pis 33
gabas 32
gadar 422
gad6s 224
gahal 796, 800
ganah 649
garab 53
garob = 53
939
INDEX OF HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WORDS
qasah 154
qaseh_ 60, 303
gatan 428, 675
gaton 428, 675
qaw 239
gqawah 239f., 772f.
qayis 432
gés 56, 60f., 432
q°sat 60
q°toret 293
ghl 805
giddig 522
giryah 802
gittér 293
gol 174, 863
goméh 199
gom’miyyiit 735
gorban 41, 43
qosem q’samim 554
qsr nrwn 684
qium 7173
qwh 246
raah 395, 488 f.
rabah 130
rdbas 349, 586
rabbat 5\\
rabbim 800
radap 805
raham 116
raham 594
rah*mim 105, 594, 598 f.
rahaq 53
ranan 353, 355
rapa 167
ras 820, 822
rasa’ 370
rasah 817
rdson 116-118, 818
rasit 608
réa’ 548, 739, 803
rébes 586
r°gaz 653
reges 653
r°sa°im 829
r°shita 608
r°sit 608
r°siiyét 608
rhm 544, 598 f.
rib 363
ribbéné Sel ‘6lam 514
rigsa’ 653
rinnah 860
r0’S§ 27, 157f., 683
rob 842
rogez 652
riah 479, 565
ram 199, 201
sagar 7130
samak yadayim 151
sapad 417
940
sappahat 465
s°gid 876
s°gullah 297 f., 838-840
semel 287
semel 287
sair 675
saba’ 602, 684
sadaq 144
sah 777
sahah 485
sahaq 430-432
samé 265
sar 663, 807
sara’ 464
sara‘at 464f.
saraGh 423, 663
sarar 807
sarebet 288
sariia’ 464
s°ba’é6t 69, 602
s‘daqah 363, 594f., 777
sedeq 591
sila 863
stlém 287
selem 287, 502
siyyaGh 265
siyyén 324
son 412f.
Sabar 239
sahaq 430f.
sakal 397
samah 355-357, 430
Sar 376
Sarah 305
Sarar 305
sason 356
s°’et 465
S*héq 431, 433
s*mol 148
Siah 140
Simhaéh 356f.
Sis 355 f.
Saal 856, 879
Saal b*sal6m 779
Sa‘ar 29
Sadday 67, 87, 513
SahaGh 876
Sahah 260
Sakab 586
salém 60, 65, 592 f.
§allit 512
§al6m 169, 237, 357, 593,
777-780, 782 f.
§alwah 7T7
sama‘ 172 f., 175, 179, 395
samam 622
Samar 132, 134, 778
samayin 71, 191, 376 f., 652
Sapak 854
Sapal 260
Sapat 363
Sagad 136f.
§aqah 274
Sagat 717
§atah 274
Sawa’ 423
Saw‘ah 860
§°élah 879
§°’6l 206
§“arim 802
§*ba‘ 690
§°kabah 586
§°kinadh 377
S°kobet 587
§*lim 487
sém 71, 88, 190, 649 f., 652,
654
séema’ 173,177
s°ma‘ 720, 864
s§°ma‘ yisra’él 173
Semen 710
§S°mittah 667
5°moneh ‘esréh 864
§*mi'aGh 173
Sepa’ 842
§*par 815
Seger 470
§°ra’ 732
Sikbat-zera’ 586
sikmah 730
Slm 778
Sir 357
§0°él’6b 554
Soltanad 607
Sta’ 69, 332
Sib 222
ta‘aGh 458
tabnit 501 f.
tah*niin 860, 863
tah*niinim 117
tahat 586
tahti 197
tam 60f., 144, 487
tamadh 622
tamam 60
tamim 60 f., 65, 144, 782
t°binadh 287
t°hinnah 860, 863
t°h6m 197, 205
t°minagh 501
t*nvah 144
t°pillah 862 f.
t°rapim 284, 317
t°sii‘ah 144
tiqwGh 239, 773
tmm 778
tokahat 140
t6rah 296, 439-441
tosab 789
twdh 550
t@am 269
taher 144
talya 411
taman 773
t6b 99, 103, 105, 116
t6b ‘6dlamim 105
téb ward’ 103
wayhi d*bar YHWH 173
Ya-huwa 67
yaép 265
yad 60, 148 f., 153, 414
yad y°’mind 414
yada‘ 395, 397,408, 488 f., 587
yadah 305
yah 862
yahal 239f., 772 f.
yahas 683
yahid 716, 725
Yahweh 67, 590
yakah 140
yam 56
yamim 475, 889
yamin 146, 414
yapa® 735
yapeh 103
yaradh 296
yaras 298, 304
yare’ 91,93
yasa® 331
INDEX OF HEBREW AND ARAMAIC WorRDS
yasab 164, 773
yasan 713
yasar 144, 237
yastia’ 587
yatém 737f.
yawan 124
Ychésep 331
YehéSsiia‘ 330-332
y*hdwaéh 69
Yehud 848
ythiidaéh 305, 319
yhiidi 305
ychidit 305
yeled 675
yrnah*méeni 681
y*risadlayim 324, 592
Yesi 332
Yesua‘ 330-332
yestia’ 69
y’wanim 124
yhw 305
YHWH 68-70, 88, 173, 278,
HS 389, 512, 656, 720, 796,
87
YHWH ’*lohéni YHWH ’ehad
720
yidd‘oni 554
yiggaGh 260
yishag 431
yishar 710
yisra’él 67, 173, 304, 322,
698, 791
yom 475, 887-890, 931
yonaéh 350
ysS° 332
zdaq 423
za‘*wah 663
zabad 41
zahab 95
zahar
zakah 144
zakak 144
zakar 569, 587
zakar tin®gébah 569
zagen 562
zar 742
zarah 33 f.
zayit 711
z°wa‘ah 663
za 876
94]
Index of Greek Words
a- 206
abba 868, 870 f.
abyssos 197, 205, 207, 210
achréston 434
achri 64, 530f.
achri telous 64
Adam 57
adelphos 505, 538, 547 f.
adikia 92-94, 458, 844
adikos 92f.
adé 436
adynatos 601, 606
aei 420
aér 189, 476
agalliad 355, 436
agalliaomai 352-354, 357f.,
361, 780
agalliasis 352-354, 358
agallé 352
agallomai 352
agapao 538-540,
547-549, 551
agapé 106, 123, 242f., 427,
469 f., 538-551, 765, 780
-agapétos 538f., 543f., 551,
725
agathoerged 98, 100, 102
agathon 98f., 101
agathopoied 98, 100, 102
agathopoiia 98, 102
agathopoios 98, 101
agathos 60, 98-106, 239, 241,
243, 403, 476, 683, 781, 846
agathosyné 98, 100f., 819
agathotés 290
agauos 643
agenealogétos 35 f.
agnoema 406
agnoed 391, 400, 406-408
agnoia 406f., 458
agnosia 402, 406
agnostos 77, 394, 406 f.
agnostos pater 394
agnostos propator 394
agnostos theos 394
ago 643, 735
agoreud 7144
agrammatos 456
agrielaios 710, 712
agrypned 137
agrypnia 137
aianés 206
942
542-544,
Aidas 206
Aidés 206
aidios 290
Aigyptos 835
ainedO 744, 855, 868
ainigma ‘7143-746, 756, 760
aion 37, 62, 158, 543, 609,
887, 928
aidnios 388, 480, 483, 928
air6é 411
aischros 50, 476, 658
aischyné 212
aisthanomai 390-392, 408
aisthésis 390f., 591
aisthétérion 391
aisthétos 192
aitéma 855, 858, 861
aitedO 855-858, 859, 861, 868
aiteomai 856
aitia 137-139
aitiama 138
aitioma 137-139
aition 139
aitios 137f.
akairos 644
akatakalyptos 212
akatastasia ‘780
akautériastos 574
akmaios 588
akmazo 588
akmé 587f.
akoé 172f., 175
akoloutheo 614, 658
akouod 172-180, 427, 443,
643, 812, 864
akroatés 172, 175-177, 554 f.
akrobystia 660
alalétos 424, 882, 884
alazon 430, 435
aleiphé 335, 712 f.
alektorophonia 136
alétheia 460, 468, 470, 472,
878
aléthinos 280, 477, 724, 837,
878
alisgeémata 286
Alkinoos 233
allegored 743,746, 755 f., 760
allégoria 743 f., 746, 748
allélon 765
allélous 542
allogenés 739, 742
(chief references in bold figures)
allophylos 349, 739, 742
allos 423, 618, 739, 741 f.,
744, 785 f.
allés 739
allotriepiskopos 7142
allotrios 739, 742
alogos 746, 661
amemptos 137, 139, 143-145
amemptés 139, 143 f.
ametanoétos 183
amnos 194, 410-414
amomos 144
ana 765
ana meros 303 f.
anabaind 42,184 f., 199, 204,
209
anablepod 735
anaitios 137, 139
anakainiz6 670
anakalypt6 212 f.
anakekalymmenos 213
anakephalaioomai 156 f., 163
anakephalaosis 163
anakrind 362, 364
analambané 203
analy6 925
anameno 245
anamneésis 533
ananeod 674, 676
ananeoomai 675
anank- 663
anakainod 670-673
anakainoomai_ 675
anakainosis 670, 673
anamnésis 717
anankaios 663
anankastos 663
anankazé 663, 669
ananké 662-664
anapausis 281
anapologétos 137-139
anastasis 504, 924
anastauro6 291
anatell6 557
anathema 516, 520, 741, 896
anatrecho 655
anax 372 ©
andrizesthe 563
andrizomai 562 f, 571
anecho ‘T1716
anechomai ‘7164-766
anektos 765, 767
anektoteros 767
aneleémon 594, 597
anéleés 594
anelémpthé 203
aneleos 594, 597
anemos 155
anenklétos 137, 139
anedgmenos 7127
aner 91, 161 f., 234, 466, 561,
562-564, 565, 571, 581, 606,
615, 634, 699
anéthon 210 f.
angellé 107
angelos 107, 502, 578, 791
anhypokritos 468-470
anhistémi 680 925
and 184, 187, 191 f., 329, 619
anoché 165-767., 771
anoigd 726-728, 730
anoignymi 726
anoixis 726
anomia 438,440,447-449, 709
anomos 438, 440, 445, 447,
449, 468
anomos 446
anosios 236 f.
anothen 187f.
antallagma 835
anthropareskos 815, 817
anthropinos 564 f., 661
anthropos 155, 160, 165, 194,
216, 233, 337, 376, 380, 385,
387, 447, 456, 473, 502-504,
510, 514, 543, 562-566, 571,
607, 630, 672, 675f., 723,
781, 819 f., 840, 900, 912
anti 119
Antichristos 435
aoratos 7168
ap- 241, 856
apaited 855, 858
apallotrio6d 742
aparché 40, 288, 883 f.
apatad 457-461
apaté 457-459, 843 f.
apaugasma 284, 289 f., 293
apeché 433
apechomai 765
apeiron 244
apekdechomai 244f., 774, 883
apelpiz6 238, 241, 244
apélthon 217
aperchomai 217
apestrepsen 215
aphanizé 433, 831
aphesis 533, 667
aphiémi 688
aphomoiod 500-502, 505 f.
aphémoidmenos 505
aphron 766
aphtharsia 480, 924
apistos 457
apo 35, 55, 91, 172, 175, 222,
241, 244 f., 586, 780, 789,
912
apo merous 303 f.
apoblepé 835
apodekateu6 693 f.
apodekatod 693 f.
apodémed 790.
apodidomai 115
apoginosko 244
apokalypsis 517
apokalypto 212
apokaradokeé 244
apokaradokia 238, 244-246
apokatastasis 920
apokekrymmenén 217
apokopt6é 418
apokrypha 214
apokryphos 214-216
apokrypto 214-217
apolaustikos 475
apoleia 126
apolegé 244
apollyd 460
apolytrdsis 388, 839, 883
apon
apoplanaé 457, 459
apoplanaomai 457, 459
apostolé 111, 299
apostolos 695
apostreph6 215
apothaumazo 621
aproskopos 105-707
apseudés 470, 472
apsinthia 27
-apsinthion 27
apsinthos 27-29
ar- 815
ara 683
archai 608 f., 614
archaios 671, 713
arché 49, 59, 61, 64, 157f.,
162, 452, 608, 614, 669, 912
archégos 64, 505
archieraomai 234
archierateud 234
archiereus 232-236, 238
archierésyné 234
architekton 555
archén 609, 777
aren 410f.
areskeia 814f., 817
areskod 814-816, 820
areskos 815
arestos 814-816
arete 61, 290, 477, 815
argos 96
argyrion 96, 845, 851
argyros 96, 845
argyrous 96
aristeros 148
arithmed 703
arithmos 683 f., 703
arnion 410-413
arnos 413
aroma 295
arrabon 39f., 44
arren S569 f.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
arrhétos 763
arsén 562 f., 569 f.
arsenokoités 569 f.
Artemisia 27
arthmos 683
arti 756
artos 194, 520, 524, 530
asebeia 91-94
asebed 93
asebés 91-95, 468
aselgeia 587
askésis 659
asotos 480
astér 27, 555, 557
asthenés 828
astorgos 538 f., 542
astrologoi tou ouranou 555
astrologos 555
ata 349
até 349
athanasia 477
athanatos 232, 476, 480
Athénai6n 847
atheos 639
atheotés 92
athroiz6 31, 33
atimazod 48, 50
atimazomai 50
atimia 48-50
atimos 48, 50
atomos 925
augazo 289, 293
augé 289 f,.
auleé6 436
autarkeia 820
auto 363
autokatakritos 363, 365
automaton 657
autos 288, 290, 387, 433, 437,
452, 477, 489, 495, 502-504,
586, 618f., 661, 692, 733,
735, 766, 772, 781, 839,
882, 900 f.
auxand 128-130
auxésis 128
aux6 128f.
azyma 463
azymos 461, 463
baind 184, 196
ballé 299, 743
baptiz6 672
barbaros 790
basileia 54,74, 112, 192, 234,
372-382, 386-388, 502, 580,
613, 714
basileia ton ouranon 192, 376,
381, 502, 714
basileia tou theou 381 f,, 386—
388
basiléié 373
basileios 372 f., 380
basileué 120, 372f., 377f.,
380 f.
943
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
basileus 69, 372f., 377f.,
389, 449, 511, 615, 781
basilikos 372 f., 449
basilis 373
basilissa 372 f., 381, 511
basis 415
baskaind 552, 559
bassa 197
bathos 197-199, 204
bathy 197
bathys 197f.
battaloged 795
bdelygma 284, 912
béma 362, 369
béma podos 369
béssa 197
bia 601
biazd 383
biblos 189
biod 474f.
bios 474f., 476-478, 845 f.
bidtikos 474 f.
blaisos 414
blasphémed 143
blepd 142, 243, 488, 756, 914
Boanérges 652
boad 855
boé 855
boéthos 576
boské 210, 411
botané 210f.
boulé 149, 819
brachys 502, 643
broma 264, 268 f., 277
brdsimos 268
brosis 268 f., 831
brycho 416f., 421, 424
brygmos 421
chaire 356, 358
chairein 356, 358, 777, 781
chairete 356, 358
chaird 352-355, 356-359,
420, 436
chalkeus 96
chalkion 96
chalkolibanon 97
chalkas 96
chara 115, 355, 356-359, 388,
420, 423, 431, 433
charagma 573-575
charaktér 284, 288-290, 292
charass6 288, 573-575
charis 115-124, 131, 356,
360, 543, 546, 614, 780
charisamenos 116
charisma 39, 42, 79, 115,
118-124, 172, 499
charités 115
charitod 115f., 118 f., 122
charizomai 115 f., 118 f., 122
charma 115
cheilos 740
cheir 144, 146, 148-151, 153,
367, 710
944
cheires 148 f.
cheirothesia 153
cheirotonia 153
ched 853
chiliades 698 f.
chiliarchos 489, 699
chilias 389, 690, 697-700,
a 734, 795, 809, 887, 901,
93
chilioit 697, 699 f., 703 f.
chloé 27
cholé 27f.
cholos 415
choria 807
chorion 845
choris 446
chortazd 211
chortos 210f.
chré 845
chréma_ 829, 844, 845, 852
chrésteuomai 105
chréston 105
chrestos 98, 103, 105 f., 281,
335, 343, 659, 714
chréstotés 105-107, 766,
770 f.
chrid 334f., 347, 711
chrisma 435
Christianos 333, 343
Christos 94, 334 f., 338-340,
343, 348, 374, 379, 401, 403,
454, 495, 515, 517, 519,
545 f., 558, 619, 671, 775,
808, 812, 835, 885
chrysion 95, 683
chrysod 95
chrysos 95
chrysous 95, 574
dai- 788
daimon 85, 498
daimonion 284, 520, 691
daktylos 148, 150, 153
daneistés 667
Dauid 374
dechomai_ 146, 244, 817
deésis 855, 860 f.
dei 139, 662-669, 808, 878,
912
deidd 85
deigmatizo 291
deipned 520 f., 536
deipnon 273, 518, 520, 522,
536
deisidaimon 85
deisidaimonesterous 85
deisidaimonia 85
dek- 238, 245
deka 692, 699
dekaté 692-694
dekatod 692-694
dekatos 692
démos 788 f., 798
démosia 790
démosios 788, 790
ded 7132-734
deomai 855, 857, 859, 860 f.,
874, 885
deon estin 664f.
despotés 508-510
dexia 146
dexiai 146
dexios 146f., 152, 188, 194,
614
di’ ainigmatén ‘756
dia 27, 120f., 243, 245, 356,
436, 517, 573, 580, 621, 654,
756, 767, 769, 774, 781
dia charagmaton 573
dia cheiros tinos 149
diabolos 381, 458
diakoned 427, 823, 847
diakonia 299
diakonos 826
dialy6 33 f.
dianoia 177, 181, 403, 493
dianoichthéti 729
dianoig6 126,729
diaskorpizd 33 f.
diaspeir6 33 f.
diaspora 33-35
diathéké 132, 183, 329, 524,
670 f.
diatithemi 385
diaugazo 289
didaché 36f., 671
didaskalia 121, 170, 766
didaskalos 36, 510, 595
didasko 36, 113, 165
diddmi 39-41, 44, 274, 299,
diégesis 113
diemai 805
dikaio6 122, 370
dikaios 91, 93, 144, 236f.,
497, 620, 658 f.
dikaios 94
dikaiosyné 78, 245, 387f.,
497, 543, 546, 595, 884
dio 186, 664
dio legei 186
diogmos 805 f., 808
didko 805 f.
diorysso 831
diotrephés 372
dipsaO 264-268, 277
dipsos 265
dischilioit 699
distomos 686
dodeka 694, 700, 703
déddekaphylon 695
dogma 135, 442, 447, 453
dogmatiz6d 453
dok- 238, 245
doke6d 44, 52, 393
doma 40-42
domos 509
dorea 40-42, 122
dorean 40f., 120
dorema 40-42
doreomai 40f.
doron 39-43, 120
dosis 40f., 131
dotes 43
douleu6 817
doulos 254 f., 508-511, 573
doxa 44-52, 119, 146, 162,
190, 204, 213, 242, 289 f.,
336, 377, 393, 482, 485, 543,
546, 563, 605, 612, 724, 781,
839
doxasthénai 546
doxaz6 44f., 203, 874
doxazomai 47, 546
drama 644
drao 644
dyna- 601
dynamai_ 601, 603 f., 615
dynameis 148, 608 f.
dynamenos 450
dynamis 69 f., 177, 388, 561,
601-606, 607-609, 615f.,
654
dynamoo 601, 603
dynastés 70, 601
dynated 601, 603
dynaton 498
dynatos 601, 606
dy6 686, 688, 697
€agnoeite 406
ean 588
ech6 62, 78, 115, 121, 145,
242, 435, 587, 594, 622, 643,
735, 846
echthros 742
édé 62
egeirO 136, 252, 925
egeneto 351, 398
egO 278-283, 289, 498, 663
ego de lego hymin 281
ae ie 79, 278-283, 715,
egregora 136
ei 270, 671
eime 100
eidenai 391
eidoleion 284
eidélion 284
eidololatrés 284 f.
eidololatria 284-286
eiddlon 284, 287, 292, 471
eidolothyton 284f.
eidos 393
eike 286
eikd 256
eikon 158, 284, 286-288,
289 f., 292 f., 501-503, 743
eikos 256
eikosi 699
eimi 57, 79, 278-283, 290,
2
einai 234, 351, 390, 500,
503 f., 658, 665 f., 683
elothos 437
eipein 236
eiréné 357, 388, 593, 776-783
eireneud 776, 780
eirénikos 776, 780, 782
eirénopoied 776, 782
eirénopoios ‘776, 780, 782
eiron 430
eirotad 879
eis 35, 60-62, 64, 115, 131,
162, 209, 241, 268, 320, 367,
387, 403, 420, 533, 542, 655,
657, 661, 735, 769, 771, 773-
775, 809, 835, 839, 882, 900
eis andra teleion 162
eis cheiras 149
eis geneas kai geneas 35
eis telos 60-62, 64, 773
eisakoud 91, 172 f., 175, 177
eiselthein 387
eiserchomai 385, 387
eita 735
eite 789
ek 55, 120, 172, 175, 179,
193, 244, 464, 599, 657, 789,
846
ek merous 303 f.
ekched 523-525, 853-855
ekchynno 853 f.
ekchynd 854
ekchysis 854
ekdechomai 244 f.
ekdémed 788-790
ekdémos 788
ekdidko 805 f.
ekdoché 244
ekei 421
ekeinos 122, 826
ekklésia 30, 83, 328, 349,
731, 734, 796, 805
eklampd 484-486
eklegomai 237
eklektos 237
eklogé 120
ekpléssomai 623
ekrybén 214
ekptyo 559
ekpyrosis 836
ekstasis 625
ekteind 150
ektenods 868
ekthambeé 621, 623 f.
ekthambos 621, 623
ekthaumazo_ 621, 623
ektrecho 588
ektroma 57
elachistos 427-429
éli eli lema sabachtani 82
eloi eldi lama sabachthani 82
elpis 238-246, 545, 736, 774
elpizd 142, 238-246
elpizomena 238
Emmanouél 86, 627, 654, 799
emon 846
empaizo 436
emphanés 488 f.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
emphanizod 488 f.
emphysad 787
emprosthen 818
empsychos 476
en 115, 146, 170, 220, 241 f.,
289, 354, 356, 358—360, 368,
388, 399, 403, 420, 436, 445,
503 f., 517, 519, 524, 545-
547, 563, 574, 586, 604, 615,
619, 621, 643, 655, 657, 671,
675, 680, 683, 708, 715, 726,
735 f., 740, 746, 756, 765,
767 f., 773 f., 781, 789, 816,
819, 878, 883, 900, 912, 925
en ainigmati 756
en apokrypho 215
en Christ6 545, 671
en Christo Iésou 619
endexia 146
enkyrid 359 f., 619
elachistoteros 428 f.
elaia 710f.
elaion 710, 713
elaion 710f.
elasson 427f.
elead 594
eleeinos 594, 597
eleeinoteros 597
eleémon 594-596
eleémosynas poied 597
eleémosyné 594-597
eleed 543 f., 594 f., 597 f.
eleéson 594
elegmos 140 f.
éleimmenos 335
élektron 97
elench6 137, 140-142, 145,
768
elenchos 140-142
elenxis 140, 142
eleos 117f., 123, 449, 543 f.,
546, 593-597, 598 f., 560
elephantiasis 464
elephas 464
eleutheria 449, 735 f.
en merei 304
en pneumati 242
en prosop6 399
en sarki 242, 816
entd krypté6 214, 216, 218
en t6 phanerd 218
enanthroped 661
enanti 735
enantion 876
endémed 788-790
endoxaz6 44
endoxazomai 47
endoxos 44, 47
endyma gamou 579
endynameo 604
endynamoo 601
endyd 925
enech6 142, 145
enekrypsen 216
enepo 643
945
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
energoumené 861
engastrimythos 554
engizO 53-55, 382, 387, 901,
932
engyos 40
engys 52-54, 65, 382
eniautous treis kai ménas hex
688, 700
enkainizod 670, 673, 675
enkopé 220f., 418
enkopén didonai tini 220
enkopto 220 f., 222, 418
enkrateia 99
enkrypto 216
ennomos 437 f., 446, 454
enocho 142
enochos 137, 139, 142 f.
enoiked 247, 251, 324
enopion 876
enotizo 172
enotizomai 175
enteuxis 860 f.
enthousiasmos 233
entimos 48 f.
entolé 133, 177, 426f., 441,
443, 445, 451, 664, 673, 778
entos 383, 390
entynchané 424, 882
enypniazomai 586
eoika 286
epaeidon epaidén 554
epainos 874
epakoud 172f., 175, 178
epakroaomai 172,175
epangelia 111, 122
epekoos 173
eperotad 856, 879 f.
eperoteéma 879-881
eperoton tous nekrous 554
ephapax 716-718, 725
ephphatha 560, 729, 932
epi 56, 58, 241, 243 f., 356f.,
504, 654f., 769, 772, 835,
876
epieikeia 256-259, 264
epieikés 256-259
epigeios 619
epigindskd 392, 397-399, 405
epignosis 392,397, 400f., 405,
408
epikaled 27, 874
556
epiklésis
epiousios 268, 868, 871, 895
epiphaind 122
epiphaneia 518, 900 f.
episkopos 777
epistatés 514, 595
episteémé 493
epistolé 781
episynago 31, 33
episynagogé 31, 33
epithesis 149f., 153
Dees ton cheiron 149-151
53
epithymia 458, 588
946
146, 151
tas cheiras
epitithémi
epitithémi
150 f.
epitropos 254
epoikodomed 249, 251, 253
eponomazd 648, 652, 655
eponymos 651
epourania 195 f.
epouranioi 188
epouranios 188, 191 f., 194,
196, 329, 387
eprepen 668 f.
erao 538-540, 542
erchomai 184, 379,
664, 758, 839, 912
erchomenos 379
eremosis 912
ereunaod 856
ergazomai 434
ergon 104, 120, 449
eris 587
ero 734
eros 103, 123, 493, 538-540,
542, 551
erotad 855-857, 879 f., 885
eschata 245
eschaton 55, 402, 904, 909
eschatos 52 f., 55-59, 65, 241,
402, 772
eschatos 55
eso 566
esomena 665
esoptron 756
esthid 264, 271, 275, 277,
521, 523
ethné 788, 790f., 793-796,
799 f.
ethnikoi 788
ethnikos ‘790, 795
ethnikos 790, 795
ethnos 37, 124, 127, 378, 788,
790 f., 793-796, 798-801,
805, 839
ethos 436-438, 450, 455, 657,
662, 790
éthos 436—438
eu 92,817
euangelia 108, 113
euangelia thyein 108
euangelion 107-114
euangelistés 107, 114
euangelizd 107, 110
146,
530f.,
euangelizomai 107-114, 443,
782
euangelizomenos 109
euangelos 107
euarested 814-817
euarestos 814-816
eucharisted 855, 868, 874
eucharistia 874
eucharistos 874
euché 861, 867
euchomai_ 861 f., 867, 873
euchos 52
euchréston 434
eudaimonia 60, 419
eudokeo 383, 780f., 817f.,
820
eudokésis 817
eudokia 358, 566, 817-820
eudokos 817
eudomoumené zoé 817
euergeteo 99
euergetés 372
euethés 643
eulabeia 90f.
eulabétheis 91
eulabeomai 90 f.
eulabés 90f., 95
eulogeomai 874
euonymos 148
euphraind 352, 354-357, 361,
436
euphrosyné 354f., 419
eusebeia 91-95, 99
eusebed 91-93
eusebés 91-94, 596, 659
eusebos 93 f., 480
eusplanchnos 599 f.
eutheds 37
euthymia 60
ex 436, 722, 756
ex ainigmaton 756
ex henos 722
exaiteomai 855 f., 858
exapatad 457-459
exégeomai 555
exégetés 555
exeimi 606
exerchomai 663
exesti 253, 606, 611
exd 566, 672
exomologeomai 874
exousia 161, 191, 213, 221,
561, 601, 606-611, 614,
615 f., 671
exousiai 608 f., 616
exousiazo 606, 611
Gaios 683
gala 268 f., 277
galéné 776
gam- 575
gamed 564, 575f., 581, 583-
585, 588 f.
gamisk6 575, 581
gamiz6 575, 581, 588
gamizon 588
gamos 575 f., 579 f., 584, 589
gar 106, 661, 766, 768, 835
gé 55,57, 104, 188, 205, 207,
209
geenna 143, 205, 207, 208-
210
gelad 429, 432 f., 436
gelds 429-431, 433
gem- 575
genea 35-39, 382, 584, 910
912
genealoged 35
genealogeomai 35 f.
genealogia 35
genesis 658
gennao 75f., 188, 505, 575,
661, 725
gennema 505
genoito 119
genos 35, 75, 232, 349
geraské 716
geron 674
Gethsémani 710
geuomai 264, 269, 277
geus 269
ginomai 35, 351, 392, 398,
489, 504, 665, 671, 707, 818,
912
gindské 158, 202, 221, 390-
408, 448, 460, 490, 586, 757
glossa 126, 505, 785 f.
glykeia 239
glykys 239
gno- 392
gnomé 392, 397 f., 757
gnosis 219, 391, 392-406,
408, 477, 480, 539, 545, 646,
655, 677, 685
gnostos 392, 397
gnothi sauton 392
goao 558
goes 552, 558, 561
gonata 859
gonia 129, 159
gony 859
gonypeted 855 f., 859
gramma_ 233, 641, 675, 715
grammateus 714, 834
graphé 774
graus 645
grégored 136, 563, 914
gyné 562-564, 585
gyneé engastrimythos 554
gypsos 574
gys 269
ha- 716
hadés 85, 188, 191, 205-210
Hagar 329, 755
hagia 230
hagiasma 224
hagiasmos 224
hagiastérion 224
hagiaz6 224, 229, 231 f.
hagioi 229, 302
hagiomai 224
hagios 93, 223f., 227, 229,
231 f., 237, 388, 547, 549,
653, 669, 673, 683, 826, 839,
868
hagidsyné 224
hagiotés 224, 230
hagizo 224
gr 477, 524 f., 532, 535 f.,
5
haimatekchysia 536, 853 f.
hallélouia 862
hama_ 500
hamartand 406
hamartéma_ 767
hamartia 93 f., 120, 411, 457,
460, 504, 533, 566, 668, 717
hamartolos 94
homos 500
hapas_ 770
hapax ‘716-719,
725
haplous 487, 744
harmonia 683
harpagé 847
harpagmos 500
Hasidioi 810
hauté (fem. of — houtos)
hazomai 224
heautos 259, 262, 618, 725,
815 f., 833, 883
hebdomékonta 696
Hebraios 304 f.
Hebrais 304, 309
Hebraisti 309
heddomékonta 691
hédeos 766
hédoné 419
hédyosmon 210f.
hédys 211, 475
hégemén 377
hégemonia 377
hégemonikon 157, 182
hégeomai 500, 835
heilkdmenos 466
heis 100, 309, 349, 477, 517,
563 f., 566, 589, 618, 716,
717, 719 f., 722, 724 f., 932
hélikia 588
hélios 289, 486
Hellas 124, 126
Hellén 124, 126 f.
Hellénes 126f.
Hellénikos 124, 126
Hellenis 124, 126
Hellénistés 124, 126
Hellénisti 124, 126
Hellénizein 126
hémera 56, 58, 363, 518, 693,
783, 887, 889, 895, 899 f.,
926, 931
hémera kai hemera 895
hémeteron 846
hémeteros 502
hen (neut. of — heis)
heneken 387
henotés 719, 721
heos 55, 57, 61, 901, 912
hedsphoros 495
hepta 690, 702 f., 893, 931
heptakis 690
herméneud 729
Heérddianos 343
hetairos 548
hetera 739
heterogléssos 739-741
720, 723,
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
heteroi 739
heteros 380, 739f., 742,
785 f.
heteros 739, 741
heterozyged 739, 741
hetoimazo 382
Heua 649
heuriské 724
hex 688, 700
nexis 657
hiera 232-235
hierachés 234
hieraomai 233
hierapolos 234
hierateia 232-235
hierateuma 232-235, 380
hierateu6 232-234
hieratikos 233 f.
hiereia 234
hiereud 234
hiereus 232-236
hierodoulos 234
hierOma 234
hieron 232-235
hieroprepés 232 f., 235
hieroprepestatos 235
hieros 223 f., 232-238, 324,
572, 576, 584, 644
hieros gamos 576, 584
Hierosolyma 324-326
Hierosolymités 324 f.
hierosyle6 232-235
hierosylos 235
hierosyné 232-234
hierothyta 233
hierothyton 285
hierothytos 232-235
hierourgeo 232-235
hierourgia 234
hierourgon 235
hiketeia 859
hiketéria 860 f., 885
hilaros 239
hilarods 735
hilaskomai 614
hilastérion 614, 766
hileos 123
himation 714
hina 661, 753, 760, 826
hina mé 7109
hina plerothé 753
hiron 224
histémi 563
hodos 458-460, 481
hoios 912
holos 659
homoia 503
homoidma 284, 500-504
homoiod 500-505
homoiopathés 500-503
homoios 497, 498, 500-503,
516
homoids 500, 502, 508
homoidsis 500-502, 505, 743
homoiotés 500-502, 505
947
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
homoiousthai 498
homonoia 776
homoousios 497,
516
homos 719
hora 758, 927
horad 134, 173,
555, 768
horisthentos 203
horizd 203
horontes tou asteras 555
hés 116, 290, 411, 420, 437,
502, 578, 699, 768, 778
hdés kecharismenoi 116
hos mé 581
hosa echeis 846
hosia 237
hosié 236
hosios 93, 223, 232, 236-238
hosiotés 236 f.
hosos 429
hdsper 234, 498, 502
hosté 671
hote 7158, 766
hoti 213, 356, 826, 901
houtos 58,155, 524, 545, 609,
654, 773, 799, 910, 912
hybris 259
hydér 140, 274
hydor tou elegmou 140
hygiaine 169
hygiaind 164, 169-171, 766
hygiés 164, 169-171
hyios 81, 194, 216, 324, 337,
374, 376, 380, 385, 387,
502 f., 514, 565, 585, 607,
630, 656, 725, 900, 912
hyios tou anthropou 194, 216,
337, 376, 380, 385, 387,
502 f., 514, 565, 607, 630,
900, 912
hyiothesia 883
hymnos_ 874
hypakoé 172, 177, 179
hypakouod 172 f., 177, 179
hyparchon 833
hyparchonta 845-847
hyparxis 829, 844, 845-847
hypékoos 179
hyper 486, 523f., 543, 587,
617, 819
hyper hémon 882
hyper hymon 368, 523 f.
hyper poll6n 524, 543
hyperakmos 581, 587f.
hyperauxand 128
hyperechd 609
hyperentynchané 874, 882
hyperhypsod 200 f., 203
hyperperisseud 131
hyperphroned 617
hyperpleonazd 130 f.
hypo 772
hypodeigma 284, 290, 293
hypogrammos 291
948
505-508,
176, 180,
hypographo 291
hypokrind 467f., 813
hypokrinomai 468, 474
hypokrisis 468 f.
hypokrités 468-470
hypomend 240, 243-245, 764,
772-174, 776
hypomoné 243, 245, 772-776,
782, 809
hypostasis 142, 243, 288-290,
488, 507, 768
hypostolé 775
hypotassomai_ 180, 664
hypsélophroned 198
hypsélos 198-200, 617 f.
hypsistos 198-200, 591
hypsoma_ 198, 200
hypsod 185, 199, 200-204,
423
hypsos 197, 198-200, 204
Ta 556
Iakébos 316-319
Takéb 284, 305, 316-319, 431,
649
iama 166-169
Tad 512, 556
iaomai_ 151,
634
iasis 166, 168
Iason 332
iatros 166, 168, 172
idea 284, 590
idein 206, 663
idia 838-840, 846
idioi 839
idion einai 846
idios 273, 456, 725, 839 f.
idiotés 456 f.
idou 103, 671
Terousalém 324-330
Tésous 94, 330-332, 334, 338-
340, 344, 373, 379, 508, 514,
517, 527, 619, 654, 885
Toda 320
Ionas 350-352
tos 27-29, 831
Touda 319 f.
Ioudaia 305, 316, 320
Ioudaios 304 f., 378, 660, 789
Toudaikos 310
Ioudaikés 304, 310
Ioudaismos 310
toudaizd 310
Ioudas 316, 319 f.
isa 498, 500
Isaak 329, 431, 649
isangelos 578
ischy6 170
ischyros 70
ischys 177, 601 f.
is€goreomai 498
isodaimon 498
isomoiros 498
isonomed 498
164, 166-170,
isod 498
isopolités 498
isopsychos 497-499
isos 497-500, 505, 508
isotés 497-499
isotheos 498
isotimos 497-499
Israél 304, 317, 319, 322, 378,
799
Israélités 304, 310
kai 722
kainé ktisis 545
kainizo 670
kainod 670
kainos 473, 524, 545, 566,
669-676, 714
kainotés 670-672, 675, 715
kaid 487
kairos 37, 588, 899, 925
kaisar 549
kakia 458
kako- 419
kala 103
kaled 243, 544, 809
kallielaios 7110, 712
kalon 98, 103
kalopoied 102
kalos 98-106
kalos 7166
kalos kagathos 102 f.
kalymma_ 212.
kalypt6 211 f., 214, 216, 220
kampto 859
kara 244
karadoked 244
kardia 40,177, 180-184, 207,
262, 566 f.
kardiognostés 180, 183
karpos 104
kartered 164, 767 f., 776, 868
kat’ agnoian 406
kat’ allélon 423
kat’ aretén 477
kat’ eleon 594
kata 120, 242, 303f., 400,
406, 420, 423, 436f., 476 f.,
489, 498, 502, 505, 519, 565,
594, 656 f., 659 f., 671, 723,
766, 774, 882
kata anthropon 565
kata anthropous 565
kata charin 120
kata Christon Iésoun 619
kata epignosin 400
kata gnosin 400
kata logon 476f., 766
kata meros 303 f.
kata monas 723.
kata opheiléma_ 120
kata physin 476 f., 657, 659
kata pneuma 242, 617
kata sarka 242, 617
kata theon 420, 882
katabaind 184-186
katadendros 285
katadikazé 362, 370
katadiké 370
katadiédko 805 f.
katagelad 429, 433
kataginoské 362 f., 365
katakalymma_ 212
katakalypt6 212
katakalyptomai 212
katakrima 362, 365
katakrind 362, 365
katakrisis 362, 365
katakyrieuo 510, 519
kataleipo6 724
katallagé 545
katalyO 252
katangell6 111, 113
kataphiled 547, 549
katapin6d 274
kateidélos 284 f.
katexousiazo 606 f.
kath’ hemeran 895
kath’ homoiosin 505
kath’ homoiotéta 505
kath’ hypomonén 774
katharos 144
katharsis 477, 594
kathémai 612, 615
katheudd 927
kathods 669
katé 184, 187, 209 f., 304
katoiked 247, 251
katoikétérion . 247, 249, 251
katoikizo 247, 251
katoptrizontes 756
katoteros 205, 209
kauchaomai 243, 354, 874
kauchéma 243
kaustériaz6 574f.
kaustériazomai 575
kaustérion 574
kautérion 574
kecharitomené 119
keimai 809
kekalymmenon 214
kekaustériasmenén 574
keimai 846
kekasthai 643
kekrymmenos 217
kenodoxia 44, 47
kenodoxos 44, 47
kenod 301, 500, 514
kenos 262, 343, 445, 828, 844,
854
kephalaion 157, 163
kephalaiod 157
kephalé 156-163, 579
kephalis 157
keras 601
kérygma 36, 248, 398, 401,
647
kérysso 111, 113
kéryx 682
klai6 416 f., 424
klad 296, 524
klasis 520, 524, 530
klasis touartou 520,524, 530
klauthmos 416f., 421
klédonizomenos 554
klei6 729 f., 733
kleis 727, 729 f., 897
kleisé ta splanchna 733
kleos 52
kléronomed 258, 295-300
kléronomia 295-302
kléronomos 295-300
klérod 295 f., 299, 380
kléros 295-304
klésis 243, 556
klétos 544
koimad 925
koimaomai 925
koineé 657
koinonia 520, 826
koinonos 520, 661
koinos 499
koité 570, 586 f.
kolla 348
kollaé 350
kollaomai 348 f.
koloboéd 916, 932
kolos 222
kély6 220-223
komé 803
komos 587
kondrantén 850
kopetos 223, 417f., 424
kopto 220, 416-418, 705
koptomai_ 417
korban 43 f., 469, 813
korbanas 43
kosmed 236
kosmios 476
kosmokratér 514
kosmos 200, 280, 411, 420,
452, 476, 494, 511, 548, 559,
567, 609, 840
kratos 601, 767
krazo 855, 873
kreitton 847
krima 362-366
krind 361-365, 370, 371, 468
krisis 143, 362, 365f., 371,
680
krités 362 f., 365
kritikos 362, 365
kroud 855, 857, 881, 885
krybo6 214
kryphaios 214, 216
kryphé 214
kryphios 214
krypta 214
krypto 210f.,
220, 835
krypton 212
kryptos 214-216
ktaomai 773, 845
ktéma 829, 844, 845 f.
ktémata 845
ktisis 243 f., 545, 671 f., 912
214, 216f.,
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
ktizo 912
kydos 52
kyllos 414 f.
kyminon 210 f.
kyria 510f., 518
kyriaké hemera 518, 934
kyriakon deipnon 518, 520,
522
kyriakos 510, 518
kyrie 509 f., 514
kyrieud 510, 518
kyrioi 510, 512, 516 f., 895
kyrios 63f., 72, 80f., 155,
186, 191, 194, 203, 213, 247,
332, 338, 359, 373, 386f.,
508-520, 522, 527, 530, 533,
536, 548, 562, 595, 651 f.,
664, 720, 735, 789, 800, 837,
867, 900 f., 932
kyriotés 510, 518, 614
kyros 510
labete 524
lachainéd 210
lachanon 210f.
laikos 457
lale6 111, 113
laleéd to thed 874
lambanéd 524, 594
lampades 486
lampas 484-486, 487
lamp6 484-486, 496
lampros 484, 486
lampros 484, 486
lamprotés 484-486
laoi 799
laos 127, 457, 788, 790 f.,
793, 795-801, 805, 839
laos ex ethndn 805
latreia 285, 885
latreud 94, 885
lego 173, 180, 186, 281, 356,
379, 645
leitourgos 885
lémpsis 131
le6n 411
léos, leds 795, 798
lepra 464, 466
lepros 463 f., 466
lepton 850
Leuei 467
Leueitikos 466
Leui 466f.
Leuis 466
Leuités 466
leuk 487
leuké 464, 675
leukos 484
lian 103
libanos 293-295
libandtos 293-295
limos 264-266
logikos 476, 885
logion 57, 630
logizomai 458
949
INDEX OF GREEK WoRDS
logographos 643
logos 79, 81, 113, 131, 133,
155, 158, 169f., 175, 456,
476 f., 493, 518, 546, 591,
594, 643 f., 657, 659, 683,
744, 766
loipoi 794
lychnia 484, 486 f.
lychnos 484, 486f., 488,
495 f.
ly6 732
lypé 360, 419-421, 424
lyped 416, 419 f.
lypeomai 419 f.
lytron 425
maché 447
mageia 552, 557f., 729, 831,
847
mageud 552, 557 f.
magos 552, 557, 561
makarios 543, 659, 825
makran 52-54
makrothen 53
makrothymed 7168-772, 901
makrothymia 164-771, 774,
776, 901
makrothymos 768 f.
mallon 504
mamonas, mammonas 255,
549, 829, 831, 836f., 843-
846, 852
mania 47\
manna 218, 268 f., 628
manteuomenos manteian 554
mantis 234
marana tha 895
maranatha 515, 518, 520,
527, 530f., 537, 543, 887,
895-898, 931 f.
martyred 110
matyria 110
mataios 285, 400
mathésis 659
mathétés 695
mathéteud 714 f.
mathos 419 —
Mattaios 715
mé 220, 222, 459 f., 709
mé anakalyptomenon 213
mé ou 220
mé thaumasés 625
mechri 64
mega (neut. of — megas)
megalé (fem. of — megas)
megaleia 424-426
megaleios 425
megaleiotés 424-426
megalosyné 424-426
megalyno 424 f.
megas 177, 356, 424-426,
428, 429, 443, 623
megistos 425
meizon 425-427, 545, 835
Melchisedek 590, 593
950
mello 480
memphomai
mempsimotros
mempsis 143 f.
men- 245
men 675, 688, 700
menein en 546
meno 213, 772, 847
menos 233
mepote 753
meris 298, 302, 303 f., 783
meros 209, 295, 303 f.
mesités 343
mesonyktion 136
mesos 615
Messias 334
mestos 597
meta 233, 359, 423, 445, 604,
680, 699
metabainod 184, 186
metadidomi 40 f.
metamorphoomai 673
metanoia 183, 770
metaphora 743
metatithemi 123
meter 497
methé 587
metron 618
mia (fem. of — heis)
mikron 429
mikros 194, 424, 427-429,
709
miméma 289
mimneéeskomai 533
mised 547
misthapodosia 835
misthos 193, 499, 813
moichalidés 584
moichalis 351, 582, 584
moichad 582
moicheia 582
moicheud 582, 589
moichos 582
moira 145, 303, 501, 664
monogenés 75 f., 81, 723-725
monon 723 f.
monos 75, 394, 716, 720,
723 f.
monos 7123
monos 723
monotatos 7124
moria 143, 619, 709
moros 619 f.
morphé 203, 290, 500, 673
Moysés 635, 638, 642
mychos 644
myron 294 f., 712
mystérion 255, 401, 581, 835
mythddes 643
mythologos 644
mythos 613, 643-645, 647
naos 233, 235f., 250
Nazaret 333
Nazoraios 332-334, 343, 346
139, 143-145
143, 145
Nazarénos 332-334, 343, 346
nea 675
nekros 554
nélees 594
nemo 296, 438
neophytos 674
neos 669-671, 674-676, 714
nedteros 674f.
neotés 674f.
nephele 912
népho 137
nephros 181
Nikolaités 676
Nikolaos 676
Nineué 678
Nineui 678
Nineuités 678
Ninos 678
Ninus 678
nipto 144, 150
Noe 681
noéma_ 182
noétos 192
nome 438
nomikos 438, 443, 447
nomimos 475
nomimos 438, 447
nomizd 234, 439
nomodidaskalos 438, 447
nomos 120, 131, 436 f., 437-
450, 452, 455, 519, 540f.,
544, 546, 658 f., 662, 715
nomothesia 438, 445
nomotheted 438, 448
nomothetés 438, 450
nothos 657
nous 182, 212, 439, 476, 493,
564 f., 567, 590 f.
nymphé 549, 579, 581, 584 f.
nymphios 549, 584 f.
nymphon 584 f.
nyn 282, 329, 416, 480, 543,
912
nynaion 543
nyni 282
nyx 134, 368, 490
obryzos 574
ochlos 448, 788f., 796, 799,
800 f., 805
odé 874
odous 421
odyné 419
odyrmos 417
ogdoos autos 692
oida 391 f., 398, 719
oikeios 247, 249, 251, 794
oiked 247, 250f.
oiketés 509
oikia 247f., 250
oikodespoted 508, 510
oikodespotés 508-510, 714,
790
oikodespotésis 509
oikodomé
256
oitkodomed
oikonomed
oikonomia
832, 837
oikonomos 253-255
oikos 129, 247-256, 873
oiktirmon 598
oiktirmos 116, 543, 593, 594,
597, 598, 599 f., 733
oiktiro 598, 600
oiktiz6 598
oiktos 593, 598
oiktros 598
193, 249, 251-253,
129, 249, 251-253
253-255
253-256, 302, 714,
oimé 756
oitonizomenos 554
okt6 692
olethros 33, 368
oligon 429
oligos 427f.
omma 393
On 278, 617, 826
onaimén 434
oneidismos 835
oneidizd 835
onesimos 434
oninémi 434
onoma 229, 648, 651 f., 654—-
656
onomazo 648, 655
opheil- 666
opheilé 666, 668
opheiléma 120, 666-668
opheiletés 666-668
opheild 662 f., 666-669
Opheled 115, 505
ophelon 666, 668
ophis 638, 642
ophthalmos 710, 925
ops 564
opse 136
orcheomai 436
orgé 412, 544, 834, 924
orgizo 419
oros 591
orphanos 737 f.
orthos 475, 659
Osiris 274
osmaomai 211
oudeis 100, 683
ouden kélyei 222
oulé 465
ouraniot A188
ouranios 188, 191 f., 778
ouranos 54, 184, 188-196,
376f., 381, 502, 555, 714,
735
ouranos aisthétos 192
ouranos noétos 192
ouranothen 188, 193, 486
ous 175, 180
ousia 507, 845 f.
oxos 28
oxythymia 769
pachyné 153 f. 156
pachys 153 f.
pagos 716
paidagogos 445
paidarion 428
paideia 140f., 745
paideu6 122, 140-142, 446
pais 151, 229, 337, 364, 643
paizd 436
palai 669 f., 675, 713 f., 716,
834
palaio6d 671, 675, 713 f., 716
palaios 473, 566, 669, 675 f.,
713 f., 716
palaiotés 671, 675, 713-715
palingenesia 566, 625, 673,
836
pan 734
pantokrator
pantote 882
par- 856
para 172,175, 243, 291, 450,
502, 618, 659 f., 743, 756,
846
para physin 659 f.
parabaind 586
paraballé 743
parabolé 502, 743f.,
748, 753, 757 f., 803
paradeigma 290, 743
paradeigmatizé 284, 291, 293
paradeisos ‘160 f., 764
paradidomai 527
paradidomi 146, 339, 361,
367 f., 543, 719, 854
paradosis 367 f.
parained 744
paraiteomai 855 f., 858
parakaled 381
paraklésis 121, 766, 774
paraklétos 359, 878, 895
parakoé 172, 175
parakouo 172, 175
paralambané 839 f.
paralogizomai 457-459
paralytikos 415
paralytos 415
paranomed 438, 451
paranomos 586
paraphora 744
parapipt6 7\7
paraptoma 120, 586
paratéreo 132 f.
paratérésis 132 f.
paredothé 339
pareimi 898 f.
parepidémeod 790
parepidémos ‘788-790, 794,
803
parerchomai 671
paresis 7167
paroikos 249, 251
paroimia 736, 743, 745, 756 f.
760
paromoiazd 500-502
69, 513
746,
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
paromoios 500 f., 503
paron 899
parousia 54, 144, 192, 387,
503, 518, 630, 887, 894f.,
897, 898-903, 907, 909, 924—
926, 932-934
parrhésia 734-737, 758
parrhésiazomai 7134-737
parthenos 87, 585, 588
pas 234, 253, 403, 477, 502,
505, 511, 655, 657, 661, 694,
709, 714, 719, 723, 768, 774,
781, 793, 799, 819, 840, 846,
910
pascha 277, 441, 521, 537,
716, 783
patér 250, 394, 401, 476,
506 f., 655, 778, 780, 868 f.,
871, 878
pathos 419, 658
patria 655 f.
patris 476
Paulos 489
pax 716
péganon 210f.
péegnymi 716
peinad 264-268, 274, 277
peirasmos 808
peithomai 122, 470
penes 257, 264, 820-822, 828
penia 820
penichros 820 f.
pentakischilioi 699
penté 689, 693, 699
pentékosté 783, 788
pentékostos 783
penthed 416-418, 420, 421-
423
penthos 421-424
pepeismai 243
pepoithds 243
pera 825
peri 140, 356, 489, 504, 621
periekryben 214
periergazomai 434
perierga 557
periergon 557
periergos 552
perikatharma 517
perilamp6 484, 486
perimend 245
periousiasmos 838
periousios 298, 800, 838-840
periphora ‘144
peripoied 838
peripoieomai 833, 838 f.
peripoiésis 829, 838 f.
peripséma 57
perisseud 131, 504
pérod 153
peros 153
pérosis 153
peteinon 729
petra 433, 732
Petros 433, 652, 732
951
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
Phainod 433, 484, 487 f., 496
Phainomai 484, 487 f.
phanerod 122
phaos 490
Phantasma 552, 559
Pharisaios 810, 814
Pharmakeia 286, 552, 558
Pharmakeus 552, 558
Pharmakon 552, 558
Pharmakos 552, 554 f., 558
phasma_ 622
phatis 52
phatos 674
Phengos 484
phil- 547
Philadelpheia 550
Philadelphia 470, 538, 542,
547, 549 f.
Dhiladelphos 549
philagathos 549
philandros 549
Dhilanthrépia 547, 549, 551
Philanthropés 550
Philargyria 550, 845
Philargyros 550, 843
philautos 550
philé 547f.
philédonos 550
philema 538, 547-549
Philémon 550
phile6 86, 538f., 547-551,
585
Philétos 550
Dhilia 538, 547f., 551, 735,
776
Philippésios 550
Philippoi 550
Philippos 538, 550
Philodémos 657
Philologos 550
philoneikia 550
DPhiloneikos 550
Philonikia 550
DPhilonikos 550
Dhilophron 550
Philophroénos 550
Philopréteud 550
Philos 538, 547-551, 585, 663
Philosophia 538, 550
Philosophos 550
Philostorgos 538f., 542, 550
Philoteknia 658
Dhiloteknos 550
Philotheos 550
Dhilotimeomai 550
Philoxenia 538, 547, 550
Philoxenos 550
phobed 596
phobeomai 91, 94
Phobétheis 91
Phobos 93 f., 396
Phobos theou 93 f.
phoboumenos 94
phoné 426
phonos 674
952
phos 290, 397, 477, 480, 484-
487, 490, 493, 496
phosphoros 490, 493, 495
phostér 490, 493
photeinos 490, 493
photismos 490, 493
photizd 485, 490, 493-495
phren- 616
phrén 620, 643
phronéma 616 f.
Phroned 259, 616-619, 781
DPhronésis 616 f., 620
Phronimos 616-620
phronimds 617, 619
phroured 134 f.
phthané 932
phthora 661
phy- 656
phylaké 134, 136, 207
phylakizd 136
Phylaktérion 136
DPhylass6 132f, 134f.,
177, 450, 452, 864
phylax 136
phylé 306
phyo 656
Phyrama_ 676
physeion 657
physikos 656, 660 f.
physikos 661
physiod 422
physis 394, 439, 476, 648,
656-662
pikros 27
pind 264, 269, 272, 274, 277,
524, 535, 755
piptd 835
pisteud 243, 837
pistis 94, 117, 133, 142, 170,
175, 239, 242f., 342, 450,
469, 488, 543, S545f., 560,
563, 618, 768
pistos 837
plan- 457f.
planaéd 457-461, 469
planaomai 457, 459
plané 457-461
planés 459
planétés 457, 459
planos 457, 459
plateia 735
pleon 130, 236
pleonaz6 128, 130f.
pleonekted 845
pleonektés 845
pleonexia 286, 845 f.
pléeroma 83, 163
pléroéd 77, 83, 87, 251, 359,
417, 629, 640, 669, 715, 753,
819
plésion 503,540,544, 548, 551
pléthos 799
pléthynd 128
plousios 820 f., 826, 840-842,
844-846
137,
plousids 840, 842
plouted 826, 840-842, 845
ploutizo 840-842
ploutos 824, 829, 834 f., 840-
844, 845 f., 852
pneuma 213, 233, 242, 388,
476, 479, 520, 546, 559, 617,
641, 672f., 675, 691, 715,
784, 824, 878, 899, 919
pneumatikos 276, 567, 605
podes kai cheires 149
poied 100, 221, 597, 664, 709
poieomai 128
poiétes 655
poimén 104, 412
poimnion 586
polemikos 1776
poled 846
polis 92, 236, 320, 324, 439,
477, 788, 801-803, 805, 840
politarchés 801, 804
politeia 801-804
polités 801-804
politeuma 801-805
politeuomai 801-804
politikos 475, 657
polléd mallon 504
polloi 530, 537
polys 104, 130, 417, 503 f.,
524, 543, 840, 846
polysplanchnos 598-600
poma 274
ponéro- 419
ponéros 103, 351, 584, 868
ponos 820
porné 365
porneia 580, 582 f.
porneud 575, 579 f., 583, 722
pornos 586
porod 153-155
poros 153
porosis 153, 156
porro 53
posis 274, 509
potérion 274, 276f., 524, 536
potis 509
potizo 274f.
poton 274
potos 274
pous 149, 369
pragma 142
praktikos 475
praxis 556
praypatheia 256, 264
praypathia 256
prays 201, 256-264, 771, 822
praytés 256-259, 263, 771
praythymos 261
prégma 674
prepei 668 f.
prepo 668 f.
prepon estin 669
presbyteros 674
pro 134, 674
probaind 412
probaton 410, 412-414, 458
problema 745
prodokia 238 f., 241, 244
proelpizd 238, 241
proginomai 767
prohorizd 79
proi 136
prokopé 128, 130 f.
prokopto 128, 130
prokrima 363 f.
pronoia 108
propator 394
prophéteia 545
prophétés 915
prophéteud 443
pros 115f., 244, 290, 349,
518, 727, 769, 789, 876, 899
pros to paron 899
proschysis 853 f.
prosdechomai 238, 244 f.
prosdeomai_ 860 f.
prosdokad 238, 244-246
proségoria 651
prosélytos 86, 90, 93f., 126,
792
proseuché 530, 860, 861, 863,
867, 875
proseuchomai 194, 396, 803,
855f., 859f., 861f., 867,
873 f., 882
proskartered ‘7167 f.
proskarterésis ‘767 f.
prosklérod 300, 302
proskollad 350
proskollaomai 348 f.
proskomma_ 220,
708
proskopé ‘705 f.
proskopto 705 f., 710
proskyned 855, 859f., 862,
867, 873, 874-878, 885, 927
proskynésis 859, 876
proskynétés 875, 878
prosopon 399, 622, 625
prosphatos 674 f.
prospherd 41
prosphora 40-42
prothesis 120, 819
protos 55, 57f., 657, 671, 720
prototokos 157, 725, 729
psall6 436, 874
psalmos 874
pséphos 674
pseud- 468, 470, 472, 648
pseudadelphos 472
pseudapostolos 472
pseudés 470-473
pseudochristos 472
pseudodidaskalos 472
pseudologos 472
pseudomai 468 f., 470, 472,
567
pseudomartyreé 470
pseudomartyria 472
pseudomartys 472
705-707,
pseudénymos 648, 652, 655
pseudoprophétés 472, 474
pees 468, 470, 472-474,
4
pseustés 470, 472, 503
psyché 157, 181, 393, 476-
478, 564 f., 773, 838 f., 919
psychikos 567
psychron 274
psychros 826
pté 821 |
ptésso 821
ptocheia 821 f., 824, 826
ptécheu6 821, 824, 826, 828
ptochos 110, 257, 264, 453,
820, 821-824, 828, 834,
843 f., 846, 852
Ptoliethron 802
ptolis 801
ptosso 821
ptox 821
pygmé 148, 150, 153
pylé 29-31
pylon 29f.
pyr 485, 746, 836
python 552, 558 f.
rhabbi 514
rhabdos 795
rhaka 143
rhésis 734
rhipé 925
rhomphaia 686
sabadth 69
Saleim 592
Salém 590 f., 592 f.
salpinx 925
Sarapis 520
sarkikos 120
Sarra 329, 431
sarx 242, 273, 349, 477, 504,
525, 535, 566, 579, 589, 617,
816, 919
schéma 203, 500, 673
schoinisma 298
seb- 91 f,.
sebas 92
sebasma 91-93
sebastos 93, 234
sebazomai 91-93
sebo 85,92
sebomai 85, 90-95, 232, 439
sebomenoi ton theon 85
sebomenos 85, 90, 94
semasia 465
seéma 626, 629
semeia kai terata 626f., 629
semeion 192, 350, 352, 621,
625, 626 f., 629, 633 f., 858
semnos 91-93, 232
semnos 93
semnotés 91-93, 95
sés 831
sidéros 97, 795
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
sidérous 97
Sion 324, 326, 330
skandaléthron 707
skandalizé 705, 707-710
skandalon 429, 664, 705 f.,
707-710
skénéma 248
skia 291, 717
sklérokardia 153, 156, 180,
184
skléros 153-156
sklérotés 153-155
sklérotrachélos 153, 155
sklérynod 153, 155
skolops 762, 809
skoped 393
skopos 52, 65
skorpizO 32-34
skotos 484, 490, 543
smyrna 294f.
smyrnizo 295
soma 158, 162, 263, 273,
476, 523-525, 531 f., 534,
537, 546, 564, 566f., 789,
818, 883, 899, 919
son 846
sophia 61, 99, 120, 127, 355,
406, 493, 616, 620
sophos 555
sOphroneé 617
sOphronés 94
sos 617
sotér 78, 158, 332, 349, 584
sdtéria 332, 388, 777, 839
sotérios 122
s6zO 122, 158, 343, 394, 560,
773, 780, 819
spendd 853-855
sperma 104, 586
speudo 245
speudontes 245
sphaz6 411
sphodra 846
sphyron 415
splanchna 116, 567, 593, 596,
598, 599 f., 733
splanchneud 599
splanchnizomai 599 f.
splanchnon 599 f.
stakté 294
statér 851.
stauros 139, 379
steinos 807 :
stékete 563
stenagmos 423 f., 882-884
stenazO 416, 423 f., 883 f.
stenochdéred 807 f.
stenochéria 807 f.
stenos 807
stergo 538 f., 542
stichaomai 451
Stichos 451
stizO 572
stigma 572, 574, 575
stigmata 572f.
953
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
stigmatias 572
stizo 572
stoicheia 73, 200, 446, 451,
828
stoicheion ‘73, 436, 451 f., 559
stoiched 451 f., 454
stoichos 451
stoma 726 f.
stygeo 86
syké 267, 382, 623, 630, 754,
871, 912, 916
sylagodged 453
syllego 31, 33
symbasileud 372 f.
symmetria 102
symphytos 504
sympolités 794, 804
syn 115, 481
synago 31, 33
synathroizo 31, 33
synchaird 431
syndesmos 62
syndoxazd 44
syndoxazomai 47
syneché 733
synedrion 143
syneidésis 567, 707
synergos 360
synetos 555
syngenes 549
synhypokrinomai 469
synienai 398
synkalypto 210
synkekalymmenon 212
synkléronomos 295 f., 300
synkrind 362, 364
synoikodomed 249, 251, 253
Synstenazo 884
synteleia 59-62
synteled 37, 59
syschématizd 673
systoiched 451 f.
systrepho 31, 33
talaipored 423
tapeinoma 198
tapeinod 259-264
tapeinophron 259-264
tapeinophroned 259
ie id 259-264,
617
tapeinos 200, 257, 259-264,
617 f., 620
tapeinosis 200, 259-264
tapeinotés 259
taphos 727
tauotés 506
tauta (neut. pl. of — houtos)
taxis 102
té emé cheiri 148
techné 657
télaugéma 465
téle 713
teleiod 59-66
954
teleios 59-66, 77, 162, 449,
477, 563, 741, 778, 782
teleids 63
teleidsis 59, 61, 63 f.
teleioteés 59-64
teleidtés 59, 61
Télemachos 233
teled 59-65
teleuta6é 59
teleuté 59
telos 52, 58, 59-66, 157, 445,
713, 715, 741, 904
temenos 233
teras 621, 626f., 629, 633 f.
teratoskopos 554
téred 132 f., 135, 137
terésis 132f.
tessara zoa_ 689
tessarakonta 689, 893
tessares 688, 703
tesserakonta 696
tetelestai 64
tetradion 689
tetrakischilioi 699
tetrakosioi 689
thalattan 726
thambed 621, 623 f.
thambos 621, 623-625, 633
thanatos 136, 143, 365, 479,
504, 781, 925, 927
thauma 621-623, 633
thaumasios 621-623
thaumasthénat 625
thaumastos 621-623, 625 f.
thaumazo 621-625
thea 477
theaomai 621
theioi anthrdépoi 165
theion 72, 86
theios 66, 81, 86, 165, 475,
561, 606, 615, 634, 661
theiotés 66, 86
theleéma 819
theld 406
thélys 569
themelios 129, 249, 706
theoi 498, 674
Theophilos 86
theopoieG 661
théored 393, 482
theorétikos 475, 478
theoria 60
theos 53, 66-86, 88, 93f.,
99 f., 121, 127, 183, 229, 231,
247 f., 250, 289, 299, 337,
364, 381 f., 386-388, 393 f.,
401 f., 408, 411 f., 420, 424,
472, 498, 500, 503, 511-516,
520, 543, 549, 565, 596, 602,
609, 636, 649, 651, 653, 65S,
661, 687, 720, 725, 767, 780,
791, 794, 800, 878, 882, 884,
912, 923, 932
theosebeia 85, 91f.
theosebed 85
theosebés 85, 91, 94
theostygés 86
theotés 66, 86
therapeia 164,171
therapeud 164-170
therapon 164
thérion 381, 574, 625, 653,
661, 684, 693, 776, 809, 826
thésaurizO 829-831, 834, 836
thésaurizon 833
thésauros 191, 829-831, 834-
836, 838, 843 f., 846 f., 852
thla6 807
thlib6 807-809
thlibonta 807
thlipsis 360, 664, 766, 774,
781, 807-809, 912
thnétos 476
thorybaz6 621
thorybed 621, 623
thorybos 621, 623
thréned 416-418, 424
thrénos 417, 611
thrésk6 164
thrix 197
thronoi 612, 614
thronos 147,601,611 f., 614f.
thygatér 325
thymiama_ 293 f.
thymiad 293 f.
thymiatérion 293 f.
thymood 419
thymos 768 f.
thyd 108, 293, 689
thyra 29-31, 280, 734
thysia 41 f.
ti kélyei 222
timad 48-50
timé 44, 47-50, 52
tis 115f., 149, 220, 222, 241,
303, 367, 498, 502, 625, 671,
708, 735, 826, 882
tithemi 859
toioutos 503, 912
touto (neut. of — houtos)
trapeza 518, 520, 522
trapeza daimonion 520
trapeza kyriou 518, 522
trapeza tou theou 520
treis 545, 686-688, 700, 703,
763, 893
tria 686
tria tauta 545
tris 659, 686, 703
trischilioi 699
tritos 63, 687, 703, 893
trogo 535 f.
tropos 662, 781
trygad 31, 33
tyché 657
typikos 277
typos 277, 284, 290, 760
tyrannikos 855
tyrannos 372
Tyrou hieras kai asylou 851
xenos
99, 538, 742, 794, 803
zad 94, 476-483, 658, 882
zéloo
zélos
zeteod
121, 806
587
806, 879
zo 476
zoa 661
z0é 387 f., 474, 475-483, 546,
780, 817, 928
z0é aidnios 388,
928
480, 483,
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
zoogoneo 476
zoon 476, 658, 689
zoopoied 476, 481
zygos 106, 119
zymé 461-463, 675
zymoo 461 f.
955
General Index
(chief references in bold figures)
Aaron 228, 312, 314, 466, 592, 636, 777
Aaron’s rod 638
Abandon 123, 155, 307, 396
Abandonment 82 f., 307, 314, 419
Abase 263
Abasement 259-264
Abba _ 76, 883
Abdicate 160
Abednego 628
Abib 675
Abide 76, 359, 449, 535, 736
Abihu 638
Ability 156, 354, 391, 395, 403, 601-616
Abimelech 140, 431
Abiram 638
Abnormal 568
Abode 71, 184, 205, 295
Abolish 160, 275, 443
Abomination 200, 284, 296, 555
Abomination of desolation 65, 373, 809, 912,
916, 931
Abomination of the Gentiles 791
Abound 130f., 144
Above 184-196, 200-204, 259, 386
Abracadabra 560, 729
Abraham 73, 117, 120, 127, 140, 168, 180,
216, 243, 245, 297, 301 f., 314, 316-319, 321,
329, 354, 359, 426, 431, 437, 452, 549, 570,
576, 590-593, 596, 627 f., 649, 651, 682, 691,
693 f., 755, 771, 793, 847, 865, 899, 917
Abrasax 683
Abroad 788
Abrogate 675
Absalom 649
Absence 420, 422
Absolute 279, 441, 444
Abstain 135
Abstemious 272
Abstinence 271
Abstract 240, 242, 746
Abundance 92, 105, 128, 130f., 842
Abuse 123, 155, 310, 412, 772, 835
Abyss 126, 205-210, 459, 727, 734, 826
Accept 178, 237 f., 245, 309, 311, 377, 794, 817
ae a 92, 116, 146, 171, 230, 814-817,
884 f.
Acceptance 116, 173, 177, 230, 272, 309, 400,
407, 812, 832
Access 31, 83, 230, 280, 443, 500, 591, 721,
727, 733, 736, 855
Accessible 342
Accession 109, 146
956
Accident 167, 414 f., 419, 665
Acclamation 424
Accommodate 814-817
Accomplish 59, 64, 83, 120
Accomplishment 120
Accord 304
Accost 856
Account 131, 244, 255, 858
Accountant 254
Accursed 399
Accusation 138 f., 178, 252, 434, 450
Accuse 137, 140, 193, 236, 378, 380, 451
Accuser 191, 313
Accustom 235
Accustomed 436
Achaemenidae 372, 848
Achaia 766, 826
Achieve 62, 327, 394
Achievement 120, 122, 798
Achilles 232
Acknowledge 180, 362, 383, 403, 417, 427, 877
Acquaintance 392
Acquiesce 769
Acquire 298, 301, 838-840
Acquisition 838-840
Acquittal 121, 674
Act 74, 108
Action 47, 62, 79, 118, 200, 223, 395 f.
Active 149, 169, 475, 660, 861
Activity 425
Actor 468, 748
Acts of John 219
Acts of Paul 219, 557
Acts of Peter 219, 557
Acts of Thomas 219
Adam 45, 57f., 103, 158, 175, 179, 242, 289,
481, 483, 504, 564, 566, 570f., 611, 649, 662,
680 f., 691, 721, 723, 761, 763 f., 893, 897, 920
Adapa 201 :
Adapt 314
Adaptation 307
Address 315, 354, 358, 513 f., 651, 856, 860,
867
Adherence 270
Adherent 298
Adiabene 792
Adjustment 569
Administer 253-256, 451, 802
Administration 121, 254, 377
Admiration 92
Admission 449
Admonition 262, 360
Adonai 556
Adonizedek 590
Adopt 309, 318
Adoption 76, 374, 672, 884
Adoptionist 506
Adoration 855, 859, 868, 876
Adore 615
Adorn 95, 217, 236, 352
Adult 62, 64, 562, 656
Adulterer 582-584
Adulteress 541, 582-584, 800
Adulterous 36, 351
Adulterous generation 582, 584, 680
Adultery 440, 448, 575-590, 871
Adulthood 59
Advance 128, 130, 238
Advance payment 40
Advanced 61
Advantage 115, 519
Advent 382, 887, 898-901, 904, 931
Adversary 202, 368, 618, 877
Adverse 364
Adversity 478, 764
Advice 141
Advise 744
Advocate 84, 231, 266, 359, 709, 787, 878,
‘883, 885, 895
Aegina 847
Aegisthus 887
Aelia Capitolina 308
Aelius Aristides 116, 621
Aeon 488
Aesthetic 93, 95, 98, 100, 102, 103
Afar 53
Affairs 146
Affect 366
Affection 538, 599, 861
Affection, Without natural
Affectionate 538-547
Affiliation 310
Affirm 318
Affirmation 149, 297, 313, 317, 340, 343
Afflatus 233
Afflict 260, 267, 807-809
Affliction 257, 263, 357, 359-361, 414, 416,
423, 663, 700, 766, 805-809, 865
Afflictions of Christ 808
Affluence 320
Afraid 90
After 55
After-life 432 f.
Agabus 827
Age 35, 58, 62, 75, 129, 170, 254, 353, 359,
398, 428 f., 433, 588, 674, 689 f., 698, 700,
713-716, 737, 892, 907, 917, 919 f., 928
Age tocome 74, 270, 298, 420, 672, 718, 836,
840, 919 f., 928
Age of marriage 578, 584, 588
Agent 195, 502, 516, 552, 658, 718
Agitation 652
Agree 897
Agreeable 116
Agreement 146, 236, 317, 328, 436, 500—508,
584, 660, 879
Agrippa (— Herod)
538-547
GENERAL INDEX
Ahab 458, 582
Ahabah 313
Ahaz 628
Ahijah 521
Aid 363
Aim 78, 335, 339, 353
Aion 158
Air 189, 192 f., 232, 452
Akeldama 321, 854
Akiba, Rabbi 337, 544, 608, 640, 720
Akitu 644
Alarm 621-626
Alcinous 233
Alert 136f.
Alexander Balas 817
Alexander the Great
612, 651, 849
Alexander Janneus (— Jonathan)
Alexander, Rabbi 462
Alexandra 810
Alexandria 331 f., 754
Alien 297, 540, 739-742
Alienate 156, 265
Alienation 94, 170, 663
Alive 122, 269, 922, 924
All 67, 188, 195, 209, 242, 398, 401, 425, 428,
530, 690, 799
All in all 74
All-Sovereign 513
Allegation 139
Allegiance 311, 377, 380, 382
Allegorical 56, 125, 277, 280, 329, 446, 685
Allegorize 442, 590
Allegory 252, 279, 584 f., 743-760
Alleviation 28
Alliteration 831
Allot 296, 298, 300
Allow 223, 236, 369, 435
Alloy 97
Almighty 70, 74, 240, 290, 329, 509, 513, 601,
857, 859, 862
Almost 428
Alms 594-598, 820, 823
Almsgiving 104, 216, 469, 824, 830-832
Aloes 295
Alone 307, 723-725
Alongside 743
Aloof 315
Alpha and Omega 59, 282
Alphabet 282
Alphaeus 467
Altar 77, 85, 191, 207, 212, 226, 273, 373, 556,
689
Altar of incense 294
Altar of sacrifice 97
Alter 437
Amalekites 637, 639
Amaze 621-626
Amazement 359, 621-626
Ambassador 608
Ambiguity 313
Ambition 121, 518
Amen 456, 837, 862, 878
Amiable 115
Amillenarianism 389
95, 124 f., 307, 372, 512,
957
GENERAL INDEX
Amillennialist 702
Ammon 395
Ammonites 373
Amnesty 168
Amorite 555, 636, 888
Amount 683
Amphictyony 325, 695
Amputation 415
Amulet 136, 556
Analogy 110, 501
Ananias 91, 320, 451, 473, 846
Anath 553
Anathema 402, 530, 897
Anaximander 137
Ancestor 92, 206, 318, 320, 331, 437
Ancestry 36
Anchor 244
Ancient of Days 80, 613, 917
Androgynous 570
Andros 214
Angel 37, 46, 86, 107, 126, 147, 149, 161, 175,
185, 191 f., 194-196, 199, 213, 228 f., 263,
298 f., 302, 332, 365, 381, 426, 434, 452, 459,
486, 488, 492 f., 502, 513 f., 518, 556, 559,
561, 565, 577, S91, 602f., 608f., 612-615,
624 f., 651, 655, 681 f., 689, 691, 696, 707,
709, 727, 791, 793, 811, 819, 832, 837, 860,
877, 884, 904, 916, 930
Angel of Darkness 492, 708
Angel of light 495
Angelic 45 f., 196, 270
Anger 28, 58, 70, 76, 139, 180, 224, 256, 261,
272, 275, 366, 419, 421, 484, 544, 550, 599 f.,
768 f., 834, 854
Anguish 83, 364, 416, 423
Animal 30, 37, 50, 59, 151, 159, 167, 180, 192,
205, 208, 230, 233, 236, 256f., 268, 274 f.,
286, 288, 320, 381, 410-414, 461, 474, 476,
483, 501, 533, 562, 564 f., 569, 572, 577, 586,
599, 625, 631, 649, 653, 659, 661 f., 684, 689,
693, 728, 741, 746, 754, 776, 809, 826, 843
Animism 520
Ankle 415
Anna 245
Annexation 325
Annihilation 58, 363, 367
Announce 107 f., 326, 343, 375
Announcement 340, 368, 384
Annual 211
Annul 437
Anodyne 295
Anoint 159, 203 f., 227, 294, 334-343, 354,
374, 435, 710-713, 791, 812, 835, 875, 899
Anointing oil 226, 294
Another 625, 838
Answer 173, 175, 178f., 244, 296, 446, 468-
470, 856, 864
Answerable 475, 510
Antagonism 826
Antagonist 383
Anthology 315
Anthropocentric 260
Anthropological 64, 94, 253, 919
Anthropology 397, 919
Anthropomorphism 66
958
Antichrist 58, 192, 205, 435, 447, 460 f., 610,
615, 633, 645, 653, 684, 809, 901, 905, 931
Anti-Christian 625
Anticipate 367, 380, 394
Anticipation 87, 238f., 244f., 309, 315, 354,
402, 918 f.
Anti-docetic 535 f.
Antidote 271
Anti-gnostic 402, 405
Anti-God 394
Anti-Jewish 309 f., 316
Anti-Judaistic 135
Anti-legal 135
Anti-monarchical
Anti-mystical 133
Antinomian 394
Antinomianism 447, 677 f., 718
Antioch 316, 321, 343, 368, 523, 729, 795,
827, 849, 895
Antiochus Epiphanes
Antipathy 332
Anti-Semitism 316
Anti-social 92
Antithesis 314, 419, 422 f.
Antithetical 122
Antitype 835
Antony 849
Anxiety 90, 240, 244, 360, 664, 832f., 841,
868
A-personal 197
Aphorism 757, 890
Aphrodite 85, 224
Apiece 158
Apocalypse 914
Apocalypse, Little 903
Apocalypse of Peter 219
Apocalyptic 37, 45, 54, 56, 58, 65, 71 f., 133,
173, 193, 202, 208, 215 f., 219, 237, 252, 276,
279, 329, 364, 366f., 376 f., 382-386, 389,
397, 447, 458 f., 482, 629, 633, 664f., 674,
684, 688 f., 692, 695 f., 698, 700 f., 703, 762,
835 f., 888, 891 f., 894, 899, 901, 903, 905 f.,
911, 913 f., 918, 920 f., 923, 925-927, 930
Apocalyptist 191, 311, 892
Apocrypha 219
Apocryphal 204, 218 f.
Apollo 85, 166, 224, 558, 756
Apollonius of Tyana_ 107, 393
Apollyon 126
Apologetic 310, 312, 332
Apology 357, 856, 858
Apophthegm 757
Apostasy 37, 270, 288, 291, 449, 487, 573,
576, 581 f., 606, 629, 633, 678, 708, 718 f., 798
Apostate 291, 555, 688, 705, 779, 866 f.
Apostatize 125
Apostle 50,57, 62, 77, 109, 111-114, 119, 121,
129, 135, 152, 176, 179, 187, 196, 217, 244,
253, 299, 359, 365, 385, 398, 412, 434, 443,
446, 451, 460 f., 472, 517, 550, 573, 597, 603,
611, 620, 655, 695, 718, 729, 732, 734, 736,
740, 765, 768, 787, 789, 799, 873, 877
Apostleship 112, 120 f., 299, 399, 827
Apostolate 121
Apostolic 75, 121, 252, 255, 263, 329, 403
374, 376
125, 372, 628, 688, 849
Apostolic Council 328
Apostolic decree 450 f., 678
Apparent 420
Apparition 552-562
Appeal 155, 162, 281, 312, 364, 860, 879-881,
882
Appeal to Caesar 882
Appear 82, 318, 328, 386, 447, 484, 518
Appearance 45, 49, 102f., 176, 182, 270, 281,
284, 286-289, 343, 399, 500-508, 566, 657,
724, 786 f., 909, 918
Appearing 898-901
Appease 164, 166, 860
Appetite 460
Application 150, 161
Appoint 152,244, 299, 301, 374, 376, 385, 412,
447
Appointment 122, 151, 297, 336
Apportion 296 f.
Appreciate 386
Apprehension’ 172, 390
Approach 53 f., 151, 215, 856, 882-885
Approbation 815f.
oats 302, 342, 380, 400, 438, 446,
Appropriation 273
Approval 308, 815
Approve 123, 362, 364, 744, 817
Approximation 686
Apsu 553
Apuleius 556
Aquarius 688
Aquila 335, 707, 847
Arabia 381, 636
Arabs in Palestine 308
Aramaic 125,309, 311, 502, 515, 795, 870, 911
Aramaism 525 f., 529, 780
Aratus 85
Aravacae 291
Archangel 191, 608, 922, 924 f.
Archetypal 284, 655
Archetype 103, 160, 191, 460, 546
Arduous 266
Areopagus 77, 85, 503, 919
Ares 85
Aretas 378, 579
Argument 140, 223, 312, 427, 434
Arian 81, 497, 506, 725
Arian controversy 505-508
Arianism 76
Arise 281, 366, 381
Aristeas 690, 697, 707
Aristides 648
Aristocracy 102, 372
Aristogeiton 372
Aristomachus 291
Aristotle 180, 439, 475, 657, 757, 772
Arius 505
Ark of the covenant 69, 186, 212, 225 f., 325,
613, 650
Arm 239, 864, 877
Armana letters 324
Armour 137, 431, 868
Armour of light 495, 925
Armourer 97
GENERAL INDEX
Army 32, 69, 146, 325, 374, 795-801, 845
Aromatic 211, 293
Arouse 418
Array 225
Arrears 667
Arrest 368, 429, 448, 451, 486, 526f., 713,
801
Arrival 109, 382, 432, 909
Arrogance 201, 259-261, 366, 399, 422, 435,
462
Arrow 27, 334
Art 683
Artemis 74, 85, 235, 426, 484, 678
Articulation 390
Artist 574
Arts 102, 679
Ascend 184-196, 377
Ascension 184, 203 f., 692, 713, 718, 787, 918,
920
Ascent 184, 209, 646
Ascetic 268, 272, 394, 581, 843
Asceticism 51, 100, 263, 265, 267, 271 f., 447,
481
Asclepas of Gaza 506
Asclepieion of Cos 166
Asclepius 151, 166, 602, 621, 666, 674
Ascribe 363
Ascription 80
Ashamed 51
Asher 317
Asherim 226, 284
Ashes 32, 157, 366, 583
Ashurbanipal 679
Asia Minor 108, 270, 451, 685, 918, 924
Ask 359, 855-886
Asleep 419, 900, 917, 922
Asp 28 —
Aspect 287
Aspire 550
Ass 257, 510
Assault 383
Assemble 32 f., 267, 328
Assembly 234, 798, 800
Assent 648
Assert 283, 862
Assessment 239, 361-363, 374, 417
Assign 300, 438 f.
Assistance 266
Associate 263, 349
Association 342
Assume 165, 430
Assumption of Moses 642
Assurance 83, 213, 239, 243, 358, 394, 531,
536, 783, 873, 924
Assure 374
Assyras 679
Assyria 306, 320, 679 f.
Assyrians 740
Astonishmeént 620-626, 736
Astound 621-626
Astrologer 558
Astrology 189, 198, 200, 214, 509, 555
Astronomical 37, 191, 690, 694, 916
Astronomy 743
Athanasius 505-507, 661
959
GENERAL INDEX
Atheist 92
Athene 85, 233, 847-849
Athenians 85, 820, 847
Athens 74, 233, 285, 372, 407, 788, 802, 818
Atlas 188
Atone 321, 410f., 800, 855
Atonement 72, 294, 407, 525
Atoning 49, 78, 368, 532, 535
Attachment 103
Attack 150, 166, 320, 398
Attainment 262
Attalus II Philadelphus 550
Attempt 321
Attend 134, 172
Attendance 164
Attendant 228
Attention 132, 134, 350, 435
Attentive 172
Attitude 90, 92-94, 99, 147, 170, 177, 179,
239-241, 243, 256, 258-261, 265, 275, 286,
310, 312, 316, 327, 341 f., 353 f., 383, 393 f.,
422, 426, 430-432, 435, 437 f., 451, 471, 568,
598, 624, 815 f., 825, 857 f., 864, 878
Attraction 115, 308, 350, 538
Attractiveness 116
Attribute 70, 76, 332, 372, 424
Augment 130
Augur 554
August 128, 232
Augustine 685, 701, 755
Augustus 93, 108, 233, 373, 511, 850
Authentication 351, 398, 626
Author 110-112, 114
Authoritative 157, 219, 398, 401, 436, 630,
632, 718, 915
Authorities 50, 101, 158, 230, 238, 255, 282,
365, 451, 607 f., 885
Authority 31, 72f., 79, 118, 121, 146, 151,
160-162, 174, 177, 179 f., 194, 196, 203 f.,
213, 218, 236, 238, 267, 282, 287, 327, 335 f.,
362, 365, 375 f., 426, 446, 468, 508, 510-515,
517, 595, 600-616, 624, 632, 640, 652, 654,
671, 674, 686, 721, 727-730, 787, 795, 797,
880, 917, 921, 930
Authorization 152, 351, 607
Authorized 176, 362, 365, 654
Autobiographical 282
Automatic 128
Autonomous 295, 432, 446
Autonomy 120, 306, 790
Avarice 550, 845 f., 852
Avenge 157, 167
Avoid 260, 268, 290, 358, 447
Await 82, 338, 385, 387, 764, 772
Awake 137
Awaken 240
Aware 327
Awareness 86, 432
Awe 90, 181, 224, 359
Awe-inspiring 622
Axe-head 97, 628
Baal 85, 190, 234, 265, 297, 432, 582, 699, 724,
797, 848, 863
Baal-Melqart 851
960
Baal-peor 60, 291
Baal-Tars 848
Babe 269 f., 354
Babel 117, 649
Babylon 96, 136, 185, 189, 321, 367, 375, 381,
422 f., 432, 466, 486 f., 495, 541, 555, 582, 625,
644, 649, 653, 688, 690 f., 696, 795, 844, 916
Babylonian creation myth 200 f., 553
Babylonians 679, 681
Bad 363, 395, 419, 476
Bag 726, 825
Baggage train 845
Bait 707 f.
Balaam 431, 558, 638, 677 f., 745
Balak 558, 638
Balance 130, 256
Baldness 465
Ban 166, 296, 830
Banish 359, 420, 463
Banishment 318
Banner 350, 357
Banquet 270, 276, 354f., 358, 520-538, 711 f.,
825
Baptism 40, 63, 75, 130, 144, 150, 152, 176,
185, 193 f., 217 f., 223, 228, 250, 276, 309,
314, 354, 401, 411, 504, 566, 641, 655, 669,
672, 682, 715, 718, 721, 728, 819, 880 f., 885
Baptism, Infant 223, 250
Baptismal formula 84
Baptismal hymn 270
Baptismal liturgy 533, 785
Baptists (> John the Baptist) 311
Baptize 127, 231, 359, 519
Bar-Jesus 557
Bar Kokhba 308, 313, 316, 337, 495, 558
bar Hunnah, Rabbah 730
Barabbas_ 136, 331
Barbarian 124, 127, 657
Bare 854
Barley 349, 711, 783
Barn 32, 831
Barnabas 85, 152, 316, 321, 368, 467, 469, 503,
557, 809, 827
Barren 324
Barrier 315, 376, 611
Barter 822
Basic 264, 288, 313, 407
Basil of Ancyra 507
Basil the Great 505, 507
Basilides 401
Basis 243, 313, 352, 360, 365, 448, 583
Basket 586
Bathe 334
Battle 31-33, 56, 154, 244, 274, 334, 357, 362,
367, 385, 435, 602, 674, 698, 796f., 893,
907
Battle line 451
Battle mace 98
Be 68
Beam 290, 484-486
Bear (animal) 215, 423
Bear 343, 668, 765-767
Bear cross 314
Bear fruit 101, 154, 177, 230, 773, 827
Bear sin 80, 411 f., 854
Bear witness 111, 130, 152, 183, 240, 245, 308,
332, 840, 867, 927
Bearable 765-767
Beard 418
Bearer 308
Bearer of authority 606-611
Bearing light 490-496
Beast 157, 192, 205, 208, 288, 376, 381, 457,
502, 574, 625, 653, 684, 688, 693, 701, 724,
776, 795, 826, 890, 899
Beat 95, 705-707
Beat the breast 416, 417-419
Beatitudes 267, 300, 353, 380, 386, 388, 422,
543, 782, 824 f., 843
Beautiful 60, 98-107, 201, 271, 329, 484-486,
806, 815
Beauty 60, 100, 103, 115 f., 250, 326, 539
Becoming 256
Bed 232, 586f.
Beelzebub, Beelzebul 510, 560, 728
Beg 737, 821 f., 855-886 |
Beget 75 f., 392, 575, 738
Beggar 386, 820-822
Beggarly, 453
Begin to fade 587-589
Beginner 61, 64
Beginning 52, 56, 59, 61, 64f., 78, 81, 112f.,
128, 138, 156f., 162, 217, 228, 358, 391, 452,
608 f., 615, 669, 716, 777, 786
Beginning and end 64, 289
Beguiling speech 459
Behaviour 65, 101 f., 118, 143, 178, 235, 259,
272, 285, 299, 312, 342, 361, 379, 400, 457,
469, 493, 597, 619, 624, 707, 709
Behaviourist schools 568
Behind 55
Behold 213
Being 67f., 70, 77-80, 83, 85, 289, 396, 400,
402, 439, 566, 651, 656, 659, 719
noe Beliar 71f., 298, 304, 314, 472, 542,
79
Belief 75, 80, 82, 124 f., 195, 287, 309, 313 f.,
431, 491, 535, 654, 718 f., 929
Believe 78 f., 119, 127, 135, 177, 243, 267, 269,
301, 310, 315, 340, 366, 379, 404 f., 429, 453,
494, 642, 709, 715, 824, 868, 874, 929
Believer 32, 40, 47f., 71, 74-79, 83, 94, 101 f.,
119, 129 f., 136, 157 f., 177 f., 186, 203 f., 211,
230f., 242 f., 251, 266, 271, 283, 295, 300-
302, 304, 313, 329, 343, 350, 353 f., 359, 361,
370, 380, 387, 391, 394, 420, 424, 445, 460,
463, 542, 545 f., 587, 604 f., 609-611, 619 f.,
653, 664, 671 f., 675, 709, 712, 715, 722, 734,
736, 775, 781, 787, 809, 819, 828, 834, 855,
861, 882, 895, 901, 922-927
Bellicose 776
Belly 73, 266, 351, 599, 619
Belong 42, 122, 247-251, 270, 312, 317, 328,
359, 374, 438, 456, 845-847
Beloved 79, 307, 326, 517, 538-547, 819
Below 184, 187 f., 259
ben Hyrcanus, Eliezer 696
ben Kosebah, Simeon 337, 339
ben Yochai, Rabbi Simeon 791
ben Zakkai, R. Johanan 313, 689
GENERAL INDEX
Bend 260, 370, 414, 856, 876
Benediction 521 f., 529, 864
Benefaction 666
Benefactor 108, 372
Beneficence 121
Beneficial 103, 434
Benefit 30, 115, 141, 352, 382
Benevolence 34, 116f.
Benevolent 100, 256, 550, 552
Benjamin 146, 317-319
Benjamite 374
Bereaved 737
Bereavement 737f.,
Beseech 860 f.
Best 121
Best man 585
Bestow 122, 266, 277, 342
Bestowal 40
Bethany 104, 418, 528, 549, 801
Bethel 67, 194, 225, 306, 317-319, 711
Bethlehem 320, 416, 579
Betray 367f., 543
Betrayal 321, 339, 368, 526 f., 531, 808
Betrothal 588
Betrothed 563, 798
Better 364, 447 f., 676, 714
Beware 135, 462
Bewail 416
Bewitch 552-562
Beyond 125, 195, 206, 208, 240, 587
Bezalel 290
Bible 309
Bile 27
Bilhah 317
Bilingual 308
Bill of divorce 307
Bind 86, 167, 194, 244, 335, 382, 732, 795, 890,
897
Binding 43, 437-439, 701 f., 811, 813
Binding and loosing 731-733
Biography 113
Bird 32f., 136, 275, 314, 386, 570, 586, 637,
661 f., 729, 746
Birth 35, 57, 75 f., 86, 126, 188, 270, 305, 309,
318 f., 332, 343, 358, 392, 394, 430, 483, 498,
505, 566 f., 570, 599, 627 f., 660 f., 666, 673,
694, 715, 836
Birth of Jesus 36, 86f., 819
Birth Narratives 624
Birth-pangs 808, 904
Birthday 786, 887
Birthright 316, 318, 782
Bishop 152, 255,258, 406, 563, 777
Bite 167, 421
Bitter 27-29, 270, 273, 293, 890
Bitter herbs © 522, 529
Bitterness 27, 271
Black 470, 496
Blacksmith 98
Blade 97f.
Blame 137-145
Blameless 60, 133, 137, 139 f., 143 f., 255, 282,
593, 705-707
Blasphemer 235
Blasphemy 143, 175, 231, 282, 307, 651, 653
961
GENERAL INDEX
Blemish 144, 354, 410f., 415, 569
Bless 71, 92, 122, 561, 649 f., 874
Blessed 77 f., 80-82, 110, 245, 258, 266, 289,
380, 433, 449, 654, 763, 774, 840, 865 f.
Blessing 116f., 128, 147f., 151, 176f., 196,
237, 242, 275, 300, 317-319, 326, 328, 357,
400, 478 f., 485, 505, 521, 529, 543, 640, 650,
652, 681, 711 f., 776-779, 792, 806, 818,
825 f., 844, 874, 885, 900, 920
Blessing of Moses 639
Blind 153, 167, 170f., 214, 216f., 351, 358,
366, 414, 434, 458, 469 f., 560, 599, 630, 633,
707, 709, 728, 754
Bliss 60
Blood 122, 142f., 150, 159, 164, 183, 200,
230, 269, 277, 302, 329, 339, 410-414, 457,
477, 494, 521-536, 542, 552, 560, 568, 571,
606, 625 f., 637, 671, 675, 682, 690, 718, 782,
787, 800, 846, 853-855, 929
Blood of the covenant 525, 532 f.
Blood-guilt 138
Blood-money 44
Blunt 295
Boanerges 652
Boast 122, 263, 352, 354, 434 f., 676, 762, 826,
844, 862, 874
Boastful 44, 430
Boat 303
Boaz 116, 577
Bodilessness 926
Bodily 79, 181 f., 196, 288, 343, 447
Bodily training 429
Body 40, 50f., 83, 102, 127, 129, 143 f., 148,
158 f., 162, 171, 179 f., 184, 188, 195, 207 f.,
230, 241-243, 245, 249, 253, 256, 263, 265 f.,
270, 273, 277, 295, 303 f., 334, 349 f., 360,
369, 384, 391, 394, 402, 414 f., 434, 457, 465,
476-478, 482, 487, 499, 506, 516 f., 521-536,
565-568, 571 f., 606, 619, 642, 659, 709 f.,
715, 718, 722 f., 762, 787, 789, 816, 818, 837,
883-885, 919, 924
Body of Christ 42, 83, 162 f., 169, 277, 350,
534, 536, 566, 646, 715, 722, 885
Boils 637
Boldness 118, 263, 625, 734-737
Bond 62, 121 |
Bondage 28, 74, 101, 121, 158, 182, 884
Bonds 30
Bone 153
Book 113 f., 189, 192, 358, 781
Book of the Covenant 441, 639, 822, 841
Book of the law 369, 440
Book of life 312, 795, 866
Booty 32, 41, 296, 497, 844
Border 60, 303
Born 228, 288, 353
Born again 270, 661, 715
Borrow 254
Bottomless 197, 205
Bound 367
Boundary 60, 131, 312
Bow 196, 232, 260, 354, 859, 876, 925
Bowels 567, 600, 854
Bowl 96, 691, 855
Box 586, 726
962
Boy 411, 428
Braggart 435
Bragging 862
Brain 182, 568
Branch 32, 712f.
Branch of David 337, 374
Brand 291, 572-575
Branding iron 574
Brass 96f.
Brass-founder 97
Brazen 188
Breach 288
Bread 80, 143, 157, 186, 194, 218, 225, 267—
269, 271, 273, 277, 279 f., 354, 417, 463, 479,
521-536, 590 f., 628, 632f., 637, 642, 676,
868, 871 f., 928 f.
Bread of affliction 522
Break 231, 296
Break bread 271, 354, 520-538, 768
Break down 252
Break the law 438-451
Break up 33
Breakdown 569
Breaking of bread 32
Breast 416-419
Breastplate 226, 296, 674, 925
Breath 77, 290, 457, 476, 478
Breathe 231, 289, 787
Breed 742
Brethren 76, 230, 844
Bribe
Bribery 837
Brick-kiln 628
Bride 307, 329, 349, 412, 541, 575-590, 798
Bride chamber 584f.
Bridegroom 358 f., 382 f., 562, 575-590
Bridge 185
Bright 239, 484-486, 490-496
Brightness 61, 290, 484, 490-496
Brilliance 484-486, 490-496
Bring 41, 314, 326, 337
Bring about 129
Bring forth 575
Bring in 443
Bring low 201, 865
Bring to account 140
Bring to light 140,216, 218, 365, 484, 490-496
Bring to pass 240
Bring to trial 365
Bring together 31, 716
Bring up 95, 201, 738
British in Palestine 308
Brittle 293
Bronze 27, 95-98
Brothel 350
Brother 53, 141, 217, 250, 268 f., 311, 318 f,,
368, 404, 450, 472, 499, 503, 521, 538, 540,
542, 544-550, 571, 600, 606, 655, 70S, 722,
739, 749, 769 f., 795, 803, 805, 823, 879
Brotherhood 185
Brotherly 116, 328
Brotherly love 547-550
Brutality 256
Build 119, 230, 247-256
Build up 78, 263, 307, 402, 611, 741, 815
Builder 622
Building 29, 129, 193, 236, 247-256, 646, 732
Building material 211
Bull 606
Bultmann and Demythologizing 906 f.
Bundle 33
Burden 83, 151, 160, 301, 307, 386, 453, 636,
820, 824
Burglar 382
Buri and Eschatology 903
Burial 32, 218, 236, 295, 417 f., 437
Burial ground 206
Burlesque 430
Burn 32, 74, 293, 304
Burn incense 293 f.
Burning Bush 68, 215, 636
Burning coals 157
Burnt-offering 410
Bury 187, 217, 318, 326 f., 340, 417, 424
Business 39, 235, 254, 303
Busybody 434, 557
Buy 240, 273, 286, 847
Caesar 288, 377, 389, 549, 604, 615, 625, 684,
804, 849-851
Caesarea 333, 369, 596, 732
Caesarea Philippi 341
Cain 138, 572, 626, 649, 690, 770
Calamity 136, 240, 364, 470, 688, 844, 890
Calculate 458
Calculation 244, 914
Calendar 189, 228, 528
Calf 356, 817
Caligula 511, 850
Call 62, 68, 83, 101, 114, 119, 154, 160, 173,
185, 188, 194, 215, 225, 230, 243, 259, 262,
267, 272, 285, 291, 302, 317, 351, 356, 358,
374, 394, 400, 403, 405, 413, 418, 422, 527,
530, 544, 566, 636, 641, 648-656, 712, 721,
778, 794, 796 f., 804, 839, 846, 862, 877
Call to account 275, 856
Call upon 874
Called 229f., 243, 297, 350, 353, 363, 380,
544, 839
Callus 153
Calmness 776
Calvary 911
Camel 317
Camp 298
Camp-followers 801
Cana 676
Canaan 258, 265, 318 f., 573, 627, 802
Canaanite 67, 154, 297 f., 300, 305, 307, 319,
324 f., 353, 434, 441, 541, 553, 576, 583, 590 f.,
602, 636
Canaanite gods_ 85, 190, 265
Candace 381, 511
Candid 470
Cannibalism 520
Canon 219, 406, 442, 452
Capability 601-616, 839
Capable 103, 394
Capacity 121, 287, 390, 842
Capernaum 231, 624, 851
Capital 139, 157, 325, 327, 335, 845
GENERAL INDEX
Capital punishment 365
Captain 698
Captive 186, 296, 367, 453
Captivity 696
Capture 308, 325
Carcass 33
Cardinal virtues 377
Care 43, 76, 117, 123, 137, 149, 164, 227, 234,
275, 303, 358-360, 386, 395, 413, 538, 737 f.,
777, 821, 823, 832, 843, 924
Careful 275
Carmel 628
Carnal 392
Carry 151, 236
Carry out 59, 441, 601
Carrying ring 97
Carthage 664
Case 369, 489
Cash 130
Cast 95, 97
Cast die 573
Cast down 225
Cast lots 295-303
Cast out 34, 75, 165, 379, 382, 559, 631, 921
Casuistry 281, 427, 442, 596, 671, 811, 813
Catastrophe 54, 56, 189, 225, 238, 313, 382,
384 f., 418, 422 f., 893 f.
Catch 624, 922
Catch in the act 363
Catch the eye 350
Catechetical 158, 270, 338
Catechumen 457
Cattle 572, 637, 742, 837
Cause 41, 137-145, 154, 166, 265, 357, 364,
370, 707, 768
Caution 90
Cave 218, 318
Cease 241, 764
Celebrate 108, 374
Celebration 273, 355
Celibacy 121, 580 f., 588
Cellar 214
Censer 293 f.
Censorious 130
Censure 140f., 144, 335
Census 569
Centre 180, 242, 325, 327f., 615
Centurion 222, 624
Cereal-offering 293, 461, 583, 711
Cereals 211, 693
Ceremonial 585
Ceremonial defilement 463
Ceremonial impurity 415
Ceremony 236, 375
Cerinthus 677, 701
Certainty 175, 178, 239, 242 f., 245, 307, 340,
391, 857 f., 887
Cessation 61, 65
Chair 611
Chaldeans 557
Challenge 286, 379, 432
Chance 497, 665
Change 183, 214, 288, 317, 320, 328, 922
Change mind 183
Changeable 393
963
GENERAL INDEX
Chaos 200, 367, 607, 631
Character 75, 141, 256, 288, 304, 309 f., 335,
352, 363 f., 366, 369, 377, 382, 429, 453, 657—
659, 767, 774 f., 798, 857
Character-formation 289
Characteristic 106, 115, 127, 155, 158, 226,
243, 261, 288 f., 353-355, 376, 430, 435, 458,
470, 602, 657 f., 774, 843, 864
Characterize 383, 427, 430 f., 449, 816
Charge 111, 113, 137, 138, 139, 144, 263,
378 f., 451, 773
Chariot 98, 226, 349, 485, 688 f.
Charis 115
Charisma 633
ar a 231, 374, 400, 627, 771, 785, 787,
883 f.
Charity 34, 415, 450, 594-598, 823, 827
Charm 115 f., 136, 552-562
Charmer 554
Chasten 366
Chastisement 261, 357
Chastity 132
Chattels 844 f.
Chatter 401
Cheap grace 106, 123
Cheat 257, 457-461
Check 270
Chedorlaomer 590, 694
Cheek 417
Cheer 809
Cheerful 43, 827
Cheerfulness 354-356, 419
Chepre 279
Cherub 476, 612f., 689, 761
Chest 829-836
Chief 160, 234
Chief priest (— Priest, Chief)
Child 76, 86f., 127, 129, 151, 228, 242, 262,
312, 353, 358, 385, 416, 427, 429, 539, 542,
570 f., 588, 675, 708, 710
Child-sacrifice 208
Childbirth 478
Childless 435, 577, 628, 638
Childlike 867
Children 50, 95, 129, 151, 188, 222, 230, 250,
ay 550, 562, 581, 599, 656, 709, 737, 816,
34
Children of Abraham 794, 798
Children of darkness 602
Children of falsehood 492
Children of God 76, 191, 218, 244 f., 610, 798,
929
Children of the kingdom 417
Children of light 36, 459, 495, 542, 602
Children of obedience 179
Children of righteousness 492
Children of wrath 660
Chiliasm 64, 136, 207, 389, 701
Chiyya bar Abba, Rabbi 462
Choice 120, 139, 260, 309, 327, 478, 581, 584,
818 f.
Choir 353
Choke 843
Choose 86, 106, 260, 395
Chorus 233
964
Chosen 73, 83, 117, 216, 294, 296, 298 f., 301,
335 f., 378, 380, 517, 542, 673, 790, 792, 795,
798, 819, 838-840, 844
Chosen people 71, 99, 191, 297, 307, 364
Chosen race 380, 839
Christ 80, 109, 129, 160, 165, 195f., 217,
230 f., 238, 241 f., 244 f., 249, 253, 270, 287-
289, 291, 300, 304, 313 f., 321, 330-348, 349,
374, 379, 388 f., 398-403, 443 f., 447 f., 453,
459, 463, 473, 495, 519, 545, 565, 570, 581,
585, 615, 619, 632, 640, 645, 653, 664-666,
671-674, 691, 706, 712, 716, 718, 720-723,
243 736, 762 f., 774, 780 f., 789, 800, 806,
812, 815-819, 826- 828. 834 f., 842, 844, 855,
859, 867 f., 873, 875, 877, 882 f., 885, 894 f..,
900-903, 905-909, 918 f., 922, 924-928, 930 f.
Christ, Person of 119, 314, 342 f., 354, 383-
388, 402, 535, 676, 691, 132. 903, "906, 920
Christ, Work of 39, 42, 54, 80, 84, 113, 119,
193, 196, 262, 343, "361, 402, 426, 443 f., 595,
609, 624 f., 630, 732 f., 789, 839, 903, 906
Christ-event 316, 907, 930
Christendom 328
Christian 120f., 123, 129, 158, 160f., 188,
193 f., 200, 221, 231, 243, 249, 268-271, 282 f.,
286, 304, 308, "316, 330-348, 349, 354, 359,
368, 373, 383, 391, 420, 424, 450 f., 453, 457,
460, 473, 487, 494, 499, 517, 519, 600, 606,
609, 611, 618, 623, 625, 654, 665 f., 678, 707,
TAZ STIS, "7186, 7193, 803 f., 806-809, 812, 815 f.,
819, 842, 858, 861, 866, 868, 882 f., 893, 895,
897 f., 900, 904, 906, 909 f., 913-915, 917 f.,
921, 924, 926 f.
Christian Platonists 754
Christmas 176, 358, 624
Christological 338 f., 343, 354, 380, 386, 403,
749, 809, 827, 834 f., 925
Christology 81f., 231, 314, 340, 342f.,,
387 f., 402, 434, 500
Christological 113
Chrysippus 658
Chrysostom 506
Church 30, 32f., 37, 42f., 50f., 58, 62, 83f.,
95, 106, 110-112, 114, 122, 127, 129, 133,
135, 137, 141 f., 147, 152, 159, 162 f., 165,
169, 171, 174, 178, 186 f., 203, 207, 210,
212 f., 218 f., 991-993: 228, 931: 235, 243,
249 f., 252, 256, 258, 263 f., 270, 272 f.. 275,
Di ls 282, 287, 289, 301- 304, 308, 315 f., 328 f.,
333. 337-340, 349, 354, 356, 359-361, 365f..
381, 386 f., 398 f., 402, 404-407, 410-413,
418-421, 438, 443, 446, 448, 450 f., 456 f.,
460-462, 473 f., 505, 515-518, 523 f., 526 f.,
529-531, 533-536, 542, 545, 547, 550, 563 f.,
566, 571, 573, 581 f., 585, 590, 596-598, 604 f.
610 f., 618-620, 632 f., 641 f., 646, 654, 676—-
678, 684, 691, 695, 699-702, 706f., 709 f.,
712, 718 f., 721-723, 727, 729, 731-734, 741,
748, 763, 7166, 768, 774 £., 780 f., 785 f., 792,
794-796, 799 f., 805 f., 808 f., 812, 816, 818.
825-828, 838 f., 842, 844, 846 f., 858 f., 867,
869-871, 873, 875, 882-885, 894-898, 900—
903, 905, 914 f., 917 f., 921 f., 927, 930 -
Cicero 711
Cipher 683 f.
Circular 52
Circumcision 86, 94, 119, 218, 309, 437, 443,
450 f., 569 f., 573, 625 f., 636, 641, 652, 660,
668, 671, 692, 708, 721, 741, 827 f.
Circumlocution 381, 602 f., 846
Circumspection 90 f.
Circumstances 116, 129, 197, 222, 400
Cite 318
Citizen 49, 325, 329, 349, 363, 456, 497, 500,
788, 794, 801-804
Citizenship 149, 193, 801-804
City 29, 125, 132, 134, 233 f., 236, 245, 297,
324-330, 375, 412, 426, 788-805
City of David 324 f.
City of God 243, 696, 803
City-state 92, 439, 788, 801-804
Civic 290
Civic magistrate 801-804
Civil authorities 101, 369
Claim 111, 118, 139, 159, 165, 202, 241, 256,
276, 282, 287, 298, 307, 309, 334, 337 f., 352,
375, 378-381, 383, 385, 394, 396, 398 f., 401,
426, 434, 443 f., 600, 606, 794
Clan 35, 247, 317, 582, 789 f.
Clarify 390
Class 102, 284, 298, 303, 437, 826
Class-ethic 103
Claudius 827, 847
Claudius Lysias 451
Clay 98
Clean 144, 225, 237, 261, 275
Cleanse 72, 159, 183, 285, 326, 358, 379, 410,
412, 423, 448, 464, 477, 586, 610, 890
Cleanthes 85, 430
Clearchus 757
Cleave to 348-350, 579
Cleft 197
Clement of Alexandria 506, 754
Clement of Rome 214, 316, 457
Cleopatra 550
Clergy 457
Climb 184f.
Cling 349
Close 59, 349, 407, 726-734
Closed 31
Cloth 212
Clothe 40, 714 f., 925
Clothing 264, 295, 465, 823, 831, 833
Cloud 154, 190, 194, 212, 376, 380, 493, 905,
912, 916f., 922, 925
Clumsy 146
Coals of fire 157
Cock 666
Cock-crow 136
Code 683 f.
Code of Hammurabi
Cognition 390, 395
Cohort 32, 93, 699
Coin 95-97, 287-289, 308-310, 358, 386,
573 f., 630, 651, 728, 847-852, 898
Coincidence 342
Coitus 586
Colani and Eschatology 903 f.
Cold 274, 597, 727, 826, 844, 881
Collapse 337, 679
555, 582
GENERAL INDEX
Collect 31-33
Collect tithe 693 f.
Collection 121, 400, 818, 826-828, 834, 844
Colonnade 236
Colony 801-804
Colossae 270, 453, 550
Colossian heresy 559
Colossians 217, 269, 646, 774, 817
Colour 27, 37, 310
Column 157
Come 184, 281, 338, 379, 382, 384, 388, 585,
886, 895-898
Come down 379, 928
Come into view 487 f.
Come near 54
Come of age 65
Come to know 392-406
Come together 659
Comedy 430f.
Comet 558
Comfort 78, 206, 215, 242, 244, 257, 259, 261,
263, 297, 352, 357, 381, 386, 418, 429, 774,
793
Comforter 307
Coming 87, 95, 110f., 129, 155 f., 170, 194,
196, 218, 229, 240-242, 262, 266 f., 271, 273,
298, 335, 340, 351, 353, 358, 366, 377, 380,
382 f., 385, 387, 433, 496, 503, 517 f., 530,
535, 675, 701, 736, 738, 771, 785, 811, 887,
894, 898-901, 905, 912-914, 916f., 921 f., 925
Coming One 379, 384
Command 43, 75, 77, 109, 123, 133, 135, 137,
154 f., 173, 180, 193, 229, 268, 272, 298, 328,
336, 398, 403 f., 407, 427, 429, 436, 440-442,
444 f., 447, 453, 473, 503, 516, 540-544, 546,
548, 550, 631, 637, 642, 650, 653, 664, 668,
720, 779, 826, 867
Commander 189, 363, 511, 699
Commander-in-chief 374
Commandment (— Decalogue) 42, 62f., 68,
93, 106, 132, 135, 141, 144 f., 147, 149, 163,
177, 215, 223, 288, 297, 306 f., 309, 313, 325,
355, 426 f., 441-443, 446, 449, 451, 458, 489,
492, 499, 542 f., 579 f., 640 f., 652, 660, 698 f.,
716, 792, 816, 823, 848, 858, 864, 870-873,
889, 893, 930
Commencement 656
Commend 112, 135, 368, 398, 744
Commentary 315
Commerce 711, 841
Commiseration 117
Commission 83, 146, 152, 154, 169, 173, 176,
212, 217, 255, 269, 302, 307, 328, 358, 426,
435, 469, 608-610, 640, 651, 654, 695, 728
Commit 151, 159, 368, 376, 442
Commitment 841
Commodity 97, 254
Common 272 f., 307, 311, 313, 316, 350, 355 f.
394, 448, 452, 456, 501, 625, 657, 659, 722,
785, 840
Common meal 520
Commoner 102
Commonwealth 801-804
Commotion 621-626, 653, 842
Communal 247, 316, 355, 438, 846, 869
965
GENERAL INDEX
Communication 559
Communion 40, 161, 245, 273, 286, 288, 359,
518, 781, 905
Community 49, 53 f., 56, 73, 83, 92, 121, 123,
129 f., 132, 134, 141, 147, 152, 155, 157f.,
161, 174, 176, 194, 203, 216, 225, 228, 231,
234, 237, 242, 247-253, 255, 257, 261, 298 f.,
302, 306-315, 328 f., 339, 354, 363, 384, 427,
429, 438, 441, 459, 463, 511, 516f., 523, 534,
542, 546, 566, 785, 788, 799, 803, 810, 820,
840, 842, 864, 882 f., 897, 906, 915, 918
Company 355, 386, 790, 800
Compare 362-367, 500-508, 743-756
Comparison 128, 287, 351-354, 411, 424, 459,
501, 743-756
Compass 688
Compassion 116f., 121, 123, 364, 418, 543,
ee 667, 733, 738, 779, 801, 825, 857,
6
Compassionate 63, 632, 652, 812
Compel 245, 662-669
Compensation 48, 583, 666 f.
Competent 362, 372, 562
Compete 308, 316
Complacency 448
Complain 190, 416, 423, 854
Complaint 140, 143 f.
Complete 52-66, 118, 144, 162, 195, 244, 313,
359, 451, 778
Completeness 191, 653, 701, 716
Completion 59, 65
Comply 132
Component 452
Compound 293
Comprehend 392-406
Comprehension 392-406
Comprehensive 690
Compromise 285, 308
Compulsion 160, 393, 447, 662-669, 827
Comrade 810
Conceal 61, 195, 211-220, 379, 416, 746, 752
Conceive ' 86, 176
Concentration 868
Conception 87, 229, 587, 599
Concern 140, 235, 303, 395, 429, 538, 825
Conciseness 748
Conclusion 32, 59 f., 139, 157
Concord 776, 782
Concordism 889
Concrete 746
Concubinage 578
Concubine 575
Condemn 78, 142, 150, 205, 237 f., 282, 362—
367, 370, 379, 381, 383, 435, 445-447, 736
Condemn to death 57
Condemnation 139, 185, 222, 267, 271, 285 f.,
361, 362-367, 370, 443, 445, 449, 584, 709,
723
Condescension 116, 118
Condition 147, 163, 230, 235, 308, 325, 343,
359, 366, 415, 421, 445, 500, 548, 568, 656—
661, 859
Conduct 61, 95, 103, 123, 218, 230, 246, 365,
391, 396, 407, 431, 436, 445, 452, 666, 669,
776, 786, 801-804, 815 f., 819, 828, 846
966
Confederacy 375
Confederate 810
Confederation 373
Confer 152, 335
Confess 42, 114, 215, 217, 263, 309, 343, 373,
377, 380, 382 f., 430, 449, 473, 516, 519, 559,
874, 885
Confession 73, 75, 78, 118, 133, 174, 176, 231,
239, 243 f., 251, 315, 340-342, 404, 514f.,,
614, 654, 722, 724 f., 897
Confessional 338 f.,
Confidence 42, 165, 218, 230, 240, 243f.,,
249, 360, 367, 385, 387, 734-737, 843 f., 863,
866, 868, 873, 900
Confidential 395
Confine 135, 445, 807-809
Confirm 119, 123, 341, 350, 797
Conflict 111, 119, 282 f., 308, 310 f., 313, 401,
781
Conform 234, 242, 255, 262, 289, 361, 436,
439, 446, 451-453, 673, 885
Conforming to the law 438-451
Conformity 259, 403, 443
Confront 327, 378
Confrontation 396, 437
Confuse 416
Confusion 461
Congenital 414f.
Congratulate 92
Congregation 51, 73f., 121, 126, 152, 161,
201, 235, 237, 247f., 250f., 412, 523, 533,
547, 668, 676, 800, 816, 818
Congregation of wickedness 364
Conjecture 44f.
Conjuror 555
Connection 386, 683
Connive 767
Conquer 218, 308, 373, 510-520, 795
Conqueror 329, 419
Conquest 257
Conquest of Canaan 297 f., 373, 802, 841
Conscience 63, 101 f., 121, 140, 149, 182, 235,
268, 286, 493, 567, 574 f., 611, 659, 706f.,
735, 881
Conscious 417
Consciousness 295, 310, 340, 379, 435
Consecrate 40, 43, 60, 63, 223-238, 354, 650,
670-674, 675, 862
Consecration 61, 215, 223-238, 294, 579, 581,
638, 711, 782
Consent 501, 817
Consequence 119, 138f., 159, 314, 360, 384,
399, 583
Consider 362-367, 458
Considerate 256-259, 400
Consideration 286, 386
Consistent 335
Consolation 359, 418, 420
Consolation of Israel 245
Console 418
Consolidation 129
Consort 349
Conspiracy 521
Constancy 452, 868
Constantine 506
GENERAL INDEX
Constellation 187, 688
Constitute 441
Constitution 657
Constraint 360
Construction 683
Consubstantial 505
Consult 367, 856, 879
Consultation 32
Consume 268 f., 831
Consummation 52, 59, 61 f., 65, 147, 178,
271, 329, 383, 532, 575, 585, 692, 789, 877,
918, 920 f., 926
Consumption 271
Contact 225f., 267, 285
Contagious magic 553
Contain 773
Contamination 223
Contemplation 60
Contemplative 475, 478
Contemporary 35, 314, 331, 338
Spe 124, 270, 284, 310, 334, 428, 449,
7
Contend 305, 718
Contempt 111 f., 143, 243, 777, 817
Contentment 60
Contest 316
Continuity 231, 314, 695, 700, 721, 787, 891,
918-920
Contract 40, 146, 305, 879
Contradict 342
Contradiction 281, 401
Contradictory 214, 229
Contrary 420, 438, 445
Contrast 281, 288, 304, 329, 334, 349, 357
Contribution 131, 320, 594, 823, 826f.
Contrite 422
Contrition 157
Contrive 236, 888
Control 99, 120, 149f., 159, 182, 191, 262,
287, 296 f., 299, 430, 446, 510, 512, 561, 609
617, 736
ee 362, 402, 405, 426, 446, 448, 451,
580
Convene 31
Conversation 861, 867, 869, 873
Conversion 74, 86, 90, 93f., 126, 181, 183,
240, 250, 266, 270, 314, 405, 407, 413, 453,
568, 584, 596, 716, 749, 785, 792, 825, 828, 877
Convert 158, 227, 443 f., 563, 881
Convict 137-145, 158, 447, 768
Conviction 140, 152
Convince 140
Convivial 356
Cook 254
Co-operation 446
Co-ordinate 80
Coping 157
Coponius 849
Copper 96f.
Copper-smith 96
Copy 192, 194, 284, 287, 290 f., 310, 447, 497,
503-508, 655, 804
Copyist 309, 715
Corban 39-44
Co-regent 146f.
Corinth 213, 235, 273, 286, 311, 365, 369,
451, 576, 597, 605, 611, 756, 762 f., 809, 849,
851, 895, 898 f., 923
Corinthians 159, 175, 179, 253, 273, 338, 360,
399, 402 f., 420, 422, 519, 530, 676, 727, 756,
765, 826, 834, 880, 884, 922
Corn 267, 675, 711
Cornelius 178, 596, 800, 895
Corner 159, 688 f.
Cornerstone 129, 249, 253, 313, 622 f., 706
Coronation 200
Corporate 353, 920
Correct 123, 140, 327
Correction 140-142
Correspond 289, 380, 451-453, 497-500
Corresponding to 497-500
Corrupt 183, 326, 461
Corruptibility 96
Corruption 96, 183, 661, 692, 714
Cosmetics 334, 711 f.
Cosmic 38, 54, 56, 65, 73, 75, 167, 188 f., 196,
200 f., 290, 375, 385, 389, 393 f., 436, 439,
482, 609, 629, 665, 828, 916
Cosmic egg 188
Cosmic harmony 498
Cosmic sabbath 697
Cosmic week 697 f., 701
Cosmogony 189, 394
Cosmological 71, 190-193, 195, 645, 887
Cosmology 187, 394, 397, 677, 673
Cosmos 66, 158, 165, 188, 192, 199, 270, 394,
405, 603
Cost 104, 699
Council 32, 368
Council of Jerusalem (— Jerusalem Council)
Council of Alexandria 507
Council of Antioch 506-508
Council of Constantinople 505-508
Council of Nicaea 316, 505-507
Counsel 77, 300, 440, 856
Count 144, 429, 683
Countenance 491
Counter 266
Counterpart 291
Countless 700
Country 92, 349, 788
Courage 180, 244, 736
Course 62, 457
Court 116, 137, 142 f., 225, 367 f., 392, 613 f.,
841, 922
Court of the Gentiles 236
Court of men 236
Court of the women 236
Court prophet 306
Courtesy 549, 712, 812, 860
Courtly style 79, 428, 818
Covenant 40, 47, 63 f., 73, 75, 77, 105, 117,
122, 132, 134, 139, 145, 155, 176, 183, 213,
228, 230, 237, 275 f., 287, 295, 298, 304, 307,
314, 316, 318, 320, 328 f., 343, 356, 367, 374,
385, 396, 441 f., 444, 447 f., 453, 471, 478 f.,
486, 492, 512, 521, 524 f., 532 f., 535 f., 540f.,
569, 576, 581, 591-595, 597, 626, 637, 671,
681, 716f., 741, 772, 779, 784-786, 794,
797 f., 854, 891, 923
967
GENERAL INDEX
Cover 157, 160-162, 211-214, 225, 259, 294
Covet 871
Covetous 286
Covetousness 96, 669, 833
Cowardice 180, 430
Craftsman 574
Crafty 469, 616
Cramp 807-809
Crave 539
Create 77, 106, 111, 128, 149, 158, 183, 190,
193
Created 83, 101, 161, 163, 310, 660, 798
Creation 45, 47-49, 51 f., 58, 64, 72, 78, 83,
99, 128, 149, 160, 189, 194 f., 243-245, 275,
285, 356, 396f., 405, 420, 441 f., 447, 483,
488, 491, 496, 516, 548, 553, 564, 569, 574,
590, 602, 608, 613, 615, 622, 629, 643, 657-
662, 671 f., 690 f., 714, 720 f., 761, 834, 877,
883 f., 889, 912, 927, 931
Creation myth 200f., 553
Creation, New 48, 78, 83, 307, 399, 482, 545,
661, 670-673, 675, 691 f., 764, 780, 836
Creation ordinances 570
Creative 128, 425, 488, 920
Creator 58 f., 64, 70-72, 74, 92, 94, 158, 160,
164, 175, 187, 226, 375, 472, 478, 480, 485,
491, 512, 514, 633, 649, 655, 658, 672, 724,
799, 839, 877
Creature 94, 105, 117, 472, 485, 613, 657, 661
Creatureliness 564 f.
Credibility 444, 858
Credit 131, 400, 434
Creditor 667, 858
Creed 406
Creep 412
Crenides 550
Crete 612, 645
Crime 139, 142, 521
Criminal 137, 238, 392, 572
Cripple 414 f.
Crisis 117, 309, 362-367, 382 f., 706
Criterion 460, 847
Critic 362
Critical 159, 401
Criticism 214
Criticism, Historical
Crocodile 485
Cronus 188
Crooked 36, 370, 414 f.
Crops 32, 211, 693, 711
Cross 42, 61, 64, 78, 80, 83, 112, 126f., 139,
145, 156, 179, 185 f., 199, 204 f., 262 f., 267,
273, 314, 334, 338-340, 343, 354, 361, 367,
378-380, 387 f., 402, 419 f., 426, 433, 435,
443-445, 481, 543, 559, 572 f., 575, 604-606,
610, 620, 671, 708, 710, 722, 766f., 775,
782 f., 794, 804, 819, 909, 918
Cross-examine 362
Crouch 260
Crowd 32 f., 599, 625, 788-805, 807-809, 842
Crown 96, 200, 204, 244, 691, 695, 795
Crown of boasting 901
Crown of life 136, 775
Crucified 203, 242, 267, 273, 282, 291, 340,
367, 388, 400, 412, 420, 715, 718
968
340, 389
Crucifixion 32, 150, 204, 295, 299, 327, 368,
379, 526 f.
Crucify 270, 544, 718
Cruelty 98, 680
Crusaders in Palestine 308
Crush 260 f., 807
Cry 82f., 175, 178 f., 215, 229, 328, 355, 361,
416-424, 426, 631, 855, 862, 873, 922
Crystal sea 615
Culinary 211
Cullmann and Salvation History 907 f.
Culmination 59, 917
Culpable 139
Cult 42, 60, 74, 92, 97, 108 f., 164, 185, 190 f.,
206, 226, 228, 233, 235, 265, 285 f., 307, 310,
327, 335, 375, 440, 650, 726, 891, 923
Cultic 41, 53, 61, 63, 92-95, 134, 164, 185,
223, 225, 227f., 234, 288, 296f., 306, 336,
ate 353-355, 410, 461, 511, 520, 525, 778,
887
Cultic centre 325 f.
Cultic regulations 441
Cultivate 211, 275, 710
Cultivated 660
Cultural 373
Cultural equality 309
Culture 124-126, 161 f., 287, 308, 311, 462,
582, 640, 645, 680, 820, 841
Cummin 210f.
Cunning 616
Cup 96, 274-277, 297, 516, 521-536, 854
Cup of blessing 521 f., 529, 532
Cup of consolation 417
Cup of suffering 276
Cure 164, 166-171
Curetes 552
Curious 552-562
Currency 96, 574
Curse 143, 157, 166, 245, 257, 267, 402, 445,
478, 504 f., 516, 519, 561, 623, 630, 638, 650,
709, 723, 741, 874, 885, 896
Curtain 212, 673
Cushite 638, 684
Custodian 445
Custody 132, 134
Custom 132f., 159, 162, 221, 254, 310f.,,
317, 331, 336, 417, 436-456, 581, 584, 641,
657, 714, 790, 799
Cut 220
Cut off 314, 385
Cut oneself 417
Cut short 222
Cutting-edge 97
Cycle 375
Cyclical history 891
Cyme 289
Cynics 735, 841
Cyprian 869
Cyprus 467, 557, 740
Cyrene 740
Cyrus 335 f., 791, 830
Daily 268, 326, 328, 871, 883, 885, 895
Daily offering 294
Dais 369
Damage 307, 705
Damaging 309
Damascus 320, 486, 513, 523, 895
Damasus of Rome 508
Damnation 362, 365
Dan 306, 317, 319, 789
Dance 436
Dancing 418
Danger 86, 96, 123, 137, 307, 328, 385, 412,
460, 843 f.
Daniel 174, 215f., 373 f., 555, 586, 610, 622,
627 f., 905, 912 f.,
Dare 432
Daric 848
Darius I 847
Dark 193, 199, 351
Dark saying 756~758
Darken 156, 183, 422
Darkness 53, 71, 185, 190, 206, 212, 215-218,
302, 380, 382, 471, 473, 484 f., 487, 490-496,
514, 543, 548, 604, 608 f., 632, 637, 645, 672,
709, 742, 834, 839, 868, 928
Datames 848
Date 894, 901
Dathan 638
Daughter 213, 317, 325-327, 548, 575, 581,
588, 677
Daughter of Jerusalem 325
Daughter of Zion 327
Daughter-in-law 584
David 79, 113, 116, 186, 237 f., 248, 260, 306,
324 f., 329, 335-337, 340, 354, 376, 378, 431,
515, 540, 591, 691, 727, 733, 802, 815, 838,
848
Davidic dynasty 306, 325, 374, 612
Davidic king 701
Dawn 109, 151, 289, 495
Day 232, 245f., 351, 359, 364, 426, 491, 496,
658, 691, 886-935
Day of Atonement 29, 151, 199, 294, 296,
350, 598, 652, 718
Day of Christ 47, 130, 360, 707, 894, 922
Day of God 245, 266, 894
Day of judgment 64, 218, 366f., 383, 385,
413, 438, 605, 894, 909
Day of the Lord 37, 140, 517, 700, 887f.,
890 f., 893 f., 901, 916, 924, 926
Day of Massacre 72
Day of salvation 242, 353 f., 894
Day of the Son of man 894
Day of wrath 894
Day of Yahweh 53, 58, 363, 887 f., 890 f., 893
Day Star 495
Daybreak 289
Daylight 490
Deacon 238, 563, 838
Dead 29f., 32, 50, 58, 63, 78f., 91 f., 113,
122, 178, 190, 204-210, 303, 340, 358, 365 f.,
387 f., 403, 417-424, 433, 435, 477-483, 554,
559, 577, 603-606, 612, 625, 630 f., 643, 680,
701 f., 714, 763 f., 796, 830, 865, 893 f., 922,
924, 929
Dead Sea 319
Dead Sea Scrolls (~ Qumran)
Deaf 170f., 175, 358, 414, 633, 729
GENERAL INDEX
Deaf-mute 560, 630
Deal out 438
Dealer 236
Dealings 235, 287, 309 f., 342, 353, 366
Dear 547
Death 28-30, 42, 48 f., 57-59, 61, 78-80, 83,
101 f., 106, 111, 119 f., 123, 126, 131, 133,
136, 138, 142 f., 150, 179, 185 f., 191, 204—
210, 212, 217, 222, 224, 229, 232, 234, 239,
242, 245, 262 f., 270 f., 273, 276, 282, 291,
300, 303 f., 318, 327, 333, 338-343, 351, 360,
364 f., 367 f., 370, 380, 382, 398, 403, 411,
416-424, 431, 433 f., 441-443, 445f., 449 f.,
471-474, 478-484, 498, 504f., 512, 514,
516f., 519, 522, 525, 527, 532-536, 543,
545 f., 552 f., 555, 564, 568, 570, 577, 581-
584, 592, 598, 604, 617, 624, 631 f., 636, 638,
641, 644, 655, 663, 665, 671, 674 f., 680, 687,
691 f., 694, 696, 706, 708, 715-718, 723, 727,
732 f., 736, 738, 761-764, 777, 781 f., 787,
808, 811, 816, 824, 840, 854, 858, 882, 887,
889, 893, 897, 900, 903, 908, 911, 914, 917-
920, 924-930
Debar 286
Debate 311, 362, 448
Deborah 796
Debt 39, 115, 118, 120, 666-668, 822, 837
Debtor 40, 168, 254, 666-668, 858, 898
Decalogue 68, 173, 278, 284, 441, 444, 637,
639
Decay 206, 244, 714, 884
Deceit 437, 457-461
Deceitful 457-461, 470-474
Deceitfulness 155, 183, 457-461, 844
Deceive 457-461, 470-474, 701 f., 795, 914
Deceiver 457-461
Decency 95
Decent 256
Deception 317, 457-461, 555
Decide 314, 362-367
Decide upon 817
Decimal 692
Decimate 698
Decision 55, 116, 130, 135, 181, 223, 311,
313, 342, 362-367, 377 f., 384-386, 391, 567,
727, 736, 873
Decisive 87, 119, 122, 157, 338, 357, 407, 907
Declaration 379, 396, 547
Declare 380
Decline 855-859
Decrease 130
Decree 79, 108, 233, 237, 296, 366, 399, 441,
450, 574, 622
Dedicate 43, 673
Dedication 855, 889
Deduction 391, 396, 402
Deed 42, 118, 366, 380, 386, 443, 819
Deep 197f., 205, 424
Deep things 198, 401
Deep-seated 197
Deepen 405
Defeat 147, 211, 320, 367
Defect 98, 160, 415
Defence 75, 138, 148, 307, 319, 398, 450
Defence force 306
969
GENERAL INDEX
Defenceless
Defend 865
Defer 779
Deference 94
Defiant 360
Defile 126, 224, 230, 285
Defilement 586 f.
Deformed 415
Degenerate 361
Degradation 50 f., 299, 772
Degrading 162, 661
Degree 304
Deification 99, 239, 394, 404, 498, 876, 898
Deism 902
Deity 49, 66, 81, 86, 92, 99, 166, 271, 284, 287,
303, 318, 342, 352, 378, 396, 430, 584
Dejection 417, 433
Delay 220f., 698, 765, 771 f., 900 f., 912, 921
Delegate 376, 607
Deliberate 273, 407, 445
Delight 60, 115, 282 f., 355, 478, 817-820
Deliver 78, 82, 146, 150, 353, 361-371, 387,
394, 418, 442, 447, 479, 681, 817
Deliver up 340, 411, 526, 534
Deliverance 55, 83, 363, 413, 421, 485, 642,
807, 824, 863, 868, 920
Deliverer 329, 363
Delphi 392, 558 f.
Delude 457-461
Delusion 349, 457-461, 473
Demand 75, 77, 102, 123, 132, 135, 147, 184,
224, 244, 262, 281, 285, 301, 394, 396, 399,
427, 445, 469, 812, 833, 855-859
Demean 259
Demeter 233
Demetrius 139
Democritus 233
Demon 34, 74, 85, 159, 165-167, 189, 196,
205, 208, 210, 225, 228, 251, 273, 284, 286,
379, 382, 426, 452, 518, 556, 561, 600, 610,
615, 630 f., 648 f., 691, 702, 877, 921
Demon-possessed 595
Demon-possession 165, 631
Demoniac 231, 623
Demonic 73f., 136, 179, 195, 270, 284-286,
485
Demonstrate 404
Demonstration 165, 315, 352, 398, 416, 422,
427, 461
Demythologization 189, 202, 645 f., 906 f.
Den 586, 628
Denarius 288, 850 f.
Denial 265, 291, 394, 924
Denounce 311, 380
Denunciation 312
Deny 135, 161, 222, 229, 296, 361, 398, 444,
459, 471, 473, 707, 775
Depart 312, 421, 924
Departed 559
Departure 317, 420, 777
Depend on 120, 446
Dependence 116, 162, 416f., 432, 667, 821 f.
Dependent 121, 132, 262, 306, 336
Deplore 594
Depopulation 60
970
257, 411-413, 615, 710
Deportation 306, 691
Deposit 27, 39, 586
Depreciation 315
Depreciatory 259
Deprivation 267
Deprive 49, 201, 257, 361
Depth 183, 197-205, 209, 212, 677
Derision 358, 432
Derogatory 259, 263, 305, 372, 428, 452
Descend 184 f., 205, 209, 326, 329, 922
Descendant 247, 297, 369
Descendants of Abraham 120, 301, 314, 452,
570
Descendants of Joseph 636
Descendants of David 337, 378
Descendants of Levi 447, 592, 693
Descendants of patriarchs 317
Descent 35, 185, 312, 381, 447, 452, 656, 660,
796, 924 f.
Descent into hell
Descent of Jesus
Describe 385
Description 343
Desecration 38, 223
Desert 265 f., 305, 635
Deserter 572
Deserve 142, 718
Design 675, 819
Designation 79, 333, 648
Desire 47, 62, 116, 121, 182 f., 200, 262, 265,
274, 356, 377, 391, 419, 458, 460, 478, 538-
547, 583, 588, 599, 814-816, 817-820, 843,
856, 874, 925
Desolation 54, 82 f., 299, 738
Desolation, Abomination of (— Abomination
of Desolation)
Despair 478
Despise 221, 258, 310, 363, 435, 440, 838
Despised 48, 50 f. i
Despondency 259
Despotic rule 607
Destination 184 f., 327
Destiny 52, 70, 138, 209, 288, 308, 383, 412,
430, 481, 510, 709, 782
Destitute 254
Destroy 33, 58, 99, 126, 151, 154, 195, 226,
252, 285, 306 f., 328, 363, 368, 373, 378, 435,
460, 715, 798, 831, 893
Destroyer 677
Destruction 33, 61, 72, 110, 149, 154, 225,
236, 238, 271, 275, 306, 366, 413, 418, 422,
446, 552, 661, 679, 681 f., 705, 709, 844, 846,
914-916
Destruction of Jerusalem 37 f., 312
Destructive 27
Detail 385
Detain 221
Detention 132
Determination 818 f.
Determine 64, 66, 75, 123, 132, 156, 160, 162,
203, 332, 339, 383 f., 430, 432, 609, 662 f.
Determine by lot 295-303
Deterministic 56, 72
Detest 350
Deucalion 124
303
79, 113, 320
Deuteronomistic 374
Deuteronomy 317, 823
Devalue 310, 313, 427
Develop 223, 310, 391, 841
Development 65, 131, 288, 367, 387 f., 923
Deviate 363, 457
Device 289
Devil 143, 207, 267, 312, 365, 381 f., 403, 472,
602, 608 f., 701, 728, 811, 893
Devious 235
Devote 768
Devoted 232-236, 262, 399, 838
Devotion 136, 236, 270, 538, 547, 572
Devour 421
Devout 53, 85, 90-92, 94, 167, 223—238, 265,
272, 302, 353, 418, 451, 471, 550, 803
Dew 307, 586, 865 f.
Diadem 693
Diadochoi 372
Diagnosis 464
Dialectic 171
Dialogue 867
pene 85
ilaspora 33 f., 91, 398, 449, 695, 792, 795
Didache 219, 870, 895 f.
Didactic 628, 743
Die 59, 120, 207, 226, 232, 269, 271, 289, 326,
339, 350, 368, 398 f., 411, 927
Dietary laws 211
Difference 101, 127, 307, 397, 499, 657, 739
Different 739-742, 794
Differentiate 310
Difficult 155, 308, 316
Difficulty 257, 3201414, 807-809
Dig 210
Digest 269
Dignity 49f.,91, 101, 146, 159, 160, 262, 340,
563
Digression 458
Dike 729
Dilepton 850
Diligence 271
Diligent 255
Dill 210 f.
Dimension 103, 197
Diminish 288
Diminutive 410 f.
Dinner 358, 520-538
Dio Cassius 679, 792
Diodore of Tarsus 505
Diodorus 679
Diodorus Siculus 116
Diogenes Laertius 430
Diogenes of Apollonia 476
Diogenian 757
Dionsysiac 539
Dionysius of Alexandria 507
Dionysius of Halicarnassus 116, 476
Dionysus 430, 674
Dip 150
Direct 50
Direction 236, 271, 377, 406
Dirge 416-424
Dirt 57
Disability 414 f.
GENERAL INDEX
Disappear 312
Disappoint 240
Disappointment 241, 316, 420, 618
Disarm 382
Disaster 56, 225, 417, 435
Disbelief 473, 544
Disc 188, 556
Discern 328
Discerner 365
Discerning 616
Discernment 391, 616
Discharge 586
Disciple 31, 34, 38, 57, 63, 76, 84, 87, 104, 106,
112, 136f., 150, 155, 159, 165, 168f., 176,
178, 180, 183, 193 f., 216 f., 222 f., 229, 232,
250, 255, 262, 267, 272, 276, 281 f., 291, 311,
328, 330f., 339, 341-343, 350, 358f., 365,
382 f., 387 f., 401, 403, 405, 411, 413, 417,
420, 427-430, 432, 434, 450, 462, 473, 482,
486 f., 493, 510, 518, 523 f., 528, 532, 535,
544, 550, 597, 610, 614, 619, 632, 642, 652-
654, 666, 695, 697, 702, 706, 709, 713-715,
732 f., 736-739, 752, 754, 766, 773, 781, 787,
795, 801, 806, 809, 825, 827, 831 f., 834, 838,
843, 846, 856, 867, 879 f., 902, 904, 909, 911,
916 f., 921, 929 f.
Discipleship 104, 139, 203, 262, 543f., 631,
699, 782, 824 F.
Discipline 140 f., 230, 243 f., 266, 350, 367,
391, 459, 575, 579, 582 f., 588, 668, 722, 733,
775, 782, 867 f., 897
Disclaim 150, 470
Disclose 212
Discontinuity 919 f.
Discourage 259, 266
Discover 296
Discredit 340
Discreet 103
Discrepancy 261
Discretion 90
Discrimination 362, 391
Disdainful 284
Disgrace 48 f., 51, 140
Disease 138, 164, 170, 349, 414, 421, 463 f.,
553
Disfavour 261, 267
Disfigure 433, 831
Disgrace 284, 572, 583, 658
Dish 556
Disharmony 781
Dishonest 282, 837
Dishonour 47-51, 160
Disinherit 257
Dislike 705
Disloyal 312, 396
Disobedience 144, 172, 175, 179, 272, 400,
407, 459 f., 473, 564f., 627, 667, 682, 716,
820, 864
Disobedient 181, 183, 202, 301, 367, 478, 481,
490, 653, 721, 880
Disorder 458, 621-626, 780
Disown 383, 641
Dispensation 40, 115, 365, 443, 641
Dispense 363, 370
971
GENERAL INDEX
Disperse 33 f., 413
Dispersion 33, 126, 306, 308, 310 f., 316, 324,
326, 331 f., 426, 740
Displeasure 149, 419
Disposal 275, 368
Disposed 259
Disposition 102, 392, 501, 622, 659
Dispossess 265
Disprove 340
Dispute 140-142, 362-367, 550, 680
Disqualify 415, 424
Disregard 325, 402, 448, 683
Disrepute 363
Disrespectful 334, 432
Disruption 250
Dissension 362, 708
Dissimulate 468-470
Dissociation 334
Dissolute 480
Dissolution 325, 629
Dissolve 33, 452
Distance 90, 94, 197, 215, 876
Distant 53, 713
Distinction 80, 302, 308, 355, 399, 403, 425,
457, 660, 683
Distinguish 84, 121, 226, 319, 333, 358, 362,
364, 391, 395, 397 f., 442
Distress 63, 82, 215, 229, 265, 353, 357, 360 f.,
419, 423f., 594, 621-626, 663-665, 715,
807-809, 855, 863, 890, 904
Distribute 33, 436, 438 f.
District 303 f., 788
Distrust 167
Disturbance 623, 777
Diversity 719
Divert 458
Dives 267, 846
Divide 189, 296 f., 362, 788, 810
Divided monarchy 320
Divination 296, 552-562
Divine 66, 72, 86, 94, 112, 120, 147, 149, 188,
224, 233, 236, 247, 267, 269, 280, 287 f., 290,
293, 335 f., 351, 355, 357, 362, 365, 372 f.,
378, 393, 402-404, 439, 475, 520, 659, 663,
719, 818
Divine man 107, 165, 498, 606
Divine nature 80, 374
Divine origin 394
Diviner 234
Divinity 66, 81 f., 86, 232-236, 294, 373, 378
Divinity of Jesus 36, 80-83, 504
Division 62, 306, 311, 315, 319, 708, 736, 794,
799, 887
Divorce 138, 349 f., 563 f., 570, 588, 715
Do good 98, 101 f., 326, 429
Do wrong 137
Docetic 314, 402
Docetism 504
Doctor 59, 164, 167
Doctrinal opinion 311
Doctrine 64, 78, 95, 118 f., 152, 165, 170 f.,
191, 219, 270, 273, 311, 358, 361, 367 f., 452,
460, 598, 652, 859
Dodd and Eschatology 904-906
Dog 27, 539
972
Domain 381
Domestic 254, 410, 412
Dominant 442
Dominate 182
Domination 688
Dominion 51, 83, 120, 203, 208, 210, 287, 319,
388, 510-520, 607, 649
Domitian 378, 511, 514, 678, 684
Donation 115
Doom 38, 367, 438
Door 29-31, 179, 194, 280, 434, 510, 726f.,
729, 881
Doorkeeper 382, 912
Doorpost 410
Dorak 98
Dorcas 596
Double heart 468
Double-minded 435
Double portion 317
Doubt 142, 182, 241, 244, 282, 393, 419, 857,
863, 868
Dough 461-463, 675 f.
Dove 313
Down payment 39
Downcast 259 f.
Downfall 320, 432, 890
Downwards 187, 617
Dowry 588
Doxology 80f., 122, 290, 724
Drachma 851 f.
Dragon 29, 570f., 613, 615, 625, 638, 642,
691, 693, 701
Drain 854
Drama 748
Dramatic 430, 432
Draw near 53, 388, 422
Draw together 113
Drawn out 265, 636
Dread 90, 224, 420
Dream 92, 96, 185, 240, 307, 317, 319, 362,
433, 457, 468, 488, 555, 561, 586, 616, 898
Dress 275, 303
Drink 157, 264-277, 295, 355, 357, 382, 387,
417, 520, 530, 929
Drink offering 853-855
Drink toast 356
Drive away 417, 485, 805-807
Drive out 64, 151, 363
Drought 193, 264, 688
Drown 426
Drunken 137, 458, 587, 625, 925
Dry 153, 265
Dualism 71,376, 402 f., 405 f., 434, 472, 492 f.
565, 567, 608, 610, 736, 840, 905, 919
Dualistic redemption 201
Due 358
Dull 28, 183
Dumb _ 171, 410, 729, 863
Dupe 458
Duration 374, 475, 478, 698
Dust 261, 349, 478
Duty 43, 47, 223, 227, 327, 437, 439, 663, 825
Dwell 75, 79, 164, 190, 193, 215, 245, 247-
251, 326, 343, 866
Dwelling 190, 199, 247-251, 586, 925
Dying 83, 201, 525 f., 532, 644
Dynamic 65, 171, 480
Dynamic monotheism 71
Dynasty 306, 325, 374
Ea-Enki 553
Each 720
Eager 244, 868
Eagle 201
Ear 110, 154, 172-176, 178, 267, 414, 726
Earlier 187, 713-716
Early 136
Early Catholicism 918 f.
Earn 102, 200, 302, 499
Earnest 39 f., 883
Earnestness 859
Earth 55,70, 74, 77, 80, 84, 131, 149, 164, 174,
184-190, 192, 194-196, 205, 207, 209 f., 212,
215, 232, 271, 274, 279 f., 282, 299 f., 303 f.,
327, 329, 353, 355, 363, 375-377, 380 f., 396,
399, 402, 411, 452, 494, 564, 571, 619, 626,
650, 655 f., 664, 688, 700, 819, 836, 840, 866,
876, 918-920
Earthly 244, 326, 342, 359, 373, 385, 403, 659
Earthquake 426, 700, 911
Ease 777
East 378
Easter 176, 203, 341 f., 387, 524, 610f., 624,
654, 695, 738, 897
Eat 157, 226, 264-277, 286, 355, 357, 387, 402,
417, 421, 520, 530, 533, 711, 889, 929
Eatable 268 f.
Eating 268 f.
Ebal 639
Ebionites 36
Ecclesiastical 536
Ecclesiasticus 331, 622
Economic 259
Economy 306, 822
Ecstasy 103, 477, 539, 621, 764
Ecstatic 202, 355, 394, 398, 739 f., 785, 883
Eden 482
Edge 303
Edification 763, 924
Edify 253
Edomites 373
Educate 265
Education 102 f., 140-142, 288, 309, 406, 430,
437, 513, 737
Educational 103, 419, 432, 445
Efface 288
Effect 245, 360, 362, 422, 428
Effective 109, 122, 130, 148, 327, 426, 861
-Efficacious 592, 873
Effort 261, 271
Effulgence 284, 289 f.
Ego 182
Egocentric 242
Egypt 68f., 96, 166, 265, 318f., 321, 329,
367, 424, 461, 464, 492, 512, 521, 541, 554—
558, 586, 627, 643, 699, 717, 719, 796, 822,
830, 835 f., 849, 863, 889 f., 916
Egyptian 374, 489, 848, 876, 891
Egyptian king myth 200
Eight 692
GENERAL INDEX
Eighteen Benedictions 311-313, 803, 864-867
Eighth 692, 698
Eighth day 692
El 67, 190, 553
Elath 97
Elder 50, 152, 319, 356, 363, 519, 521, 563,
615, 638 f., 696, 715, 799, 880
Eleatic school 719
Eleazar 792
Elect 32-34, 45, 46, 73, 118, 156, 194, 228 f.,
241, 298, 307, 313 f., 354, 357, 364, 367, 395,
413, 428, 540, 566, 689, 771, 775, 798, 817,
893, 916
Election 73, 77, 117f., 237, 259, 301 f., 307,
311 f., 321, 357 f., 385, 400, 402, 544 f., 604,
609, 661, 709, 797, 818 f., 863, 889
Electrum 97
Elements 270, 436-456, 657, 659
Elemental powers, spirits 200, 270, 559, 645
Elementary 452
Elephantine 576
Eleusinian deities 484
Eleusinian mysteries 643
Eli 116, 856
Eliakim 727, 730, 732 f.
Eliezer 637
Elijah 82, 281, 337, 399, 432 f., 443, 488, 503,
559, 582, 627 f., 640, 686, 688, 724, 730, 861,
863, 882, 893, 902
Elimination 372
Elisha 225, 337, 433, 464, 627 f.
Elizabeth 353, 358
Eloah 67
Elohim 67
Eloquence 873
Elymas 557
Elysian fields 671
Emanation 67, 290
Embalm 293
Embassy 311
Embezzlement 471
Embodiment 289, 325, 625
Emboss 288
Emigrate 788-790
Emissary 328
Emission 586
Emmanuel 86f., 654
Emmaus 729
Emotion 70, 180-183, 244, 352, 355, 416-424,
478, 552, 567, 593, 599 f., 765
Emperor 233 f., 288, 378, 380, 511, 572, 574,
624, 665, 693, 782, 898
Emperor-cult 309, 373, 674, 876
Emperor-worship 511
Emphasis 112
Emphasize 327
Empire 376, 381, 689, 788, 802, 918
Empirical 395
Employer 513
Empower 146, 165
Emptiness 432
Empty 150, 203, 242, 262, 264, 285, 343, 400,
445, 471, 500, 620, 683, 828, 844, 854
Enable 357, 359
Enact 438-451
973
GENERAL INDEX
Enchanter 555
Enchantment 166
Encounter 223, 317, 342, 396, 631
Encouragement 199, 266, 317, 431, 857
End 37, 52-66, 128, 157, 229, 275, 303, 313,
351, 385, 443, 445, 451, 461, 629, 633, 657,
665, 701, 748, 786, 892, 904, 908, 910-912,
914 f., 918, 926
End of the age 37, 218, 282, 326, 329, 844,
900 f., 921
End of time 48, 300, 354, 376 f., 388, 417, 610
End of the world 37f., 52, 54, 61f., 383 f.,
458, 893, 903, 918
End-time 34, 54, 56, 250, 266, 306, 308 f., 315,
382, 717, 736, 785, 808, 833, 889, 914 f., 929
Endanger 370
Endeavour 617
Endless 891
Endor 554
Endowment 121, 658
Ends of the earth 55
Endurable 765-767
oe 98, 123, 245, 291, 301, 696, 764—
76
Endure 269, 357, 420, 764-767, 773
Enduring 96, 318
Enemy 58, 61, 71, 105 f., 110, 144, 146 f., 149,
157 f., 187, 206, 211, 215, 220, 245, 256, 263,
266, 268, 363 f, 366, 385f., 402, 413, 416,
432 f., 438, 486, 499, 543 f., 547, 549, 613,
632, 665, 674, 679, 868
Energetic 861
Energy 148, 658
Engaged 582, 585
Engagement 584
Engrave 573
Enjoy 269-271, 352, 428, 477, 817, 843
Enjoyment 264, 273, 352-361, 458
Enlightener 290
Enlightenment 243, 265, 270, 490-496, 718
Enmity 258, 309, 426, 548, 663
Enoch 216, 219, 227, 290, 627, 681, 815, 817,
842, 897, 905
Enough 131, 272
Enquire 140, 286, 362, 364
Enrich 405, 842
Enslave 94, 154, 182f., 195, 229, 265, 401,
449, 718, 828, 843
Ensure 364
Entanglement 457
Enter 223, 244, 295, 385, 387 f., 813
Enterprise 254
Entertain 674
Enthronement 58, 108 f., 201-203, 374-376,
918
Enthronement festival 375, 613
Enthronement Psalms 336, 375, 613
Enthusiasm 160, 171, 241, 386, 429, 785 f.,
883
Enthusiast 253, 267, 611, 741
Enticement 458, 708, 845
Entirely 63
Entrails 599 f.
Entrance 29-31, 54, 179, 245
Entreat 861-864, 867-875
974
Entreaty 860 f., 862-864, 876-875
Entrust 113, 255 f., 366, 438, 837
Entry 379, 415, 902
Enima Eli§ 200, 552
Envious 356
Environment 307-309, 487
Envy 594
Epaphras 597
Ephemeral 358
Ephesians 217, 302
Ephesus 74, 85, 235, 360, 557, 623, 644, 676,
678, 763, 775
Ephod 296
Ephraim 306, 318, 541, 649
Epictetus 140, 776
Epicureans 817
Epidauros 166
Epimenides 85
Epiphanius 506f.
Epiphany 245, 862
Eponym 318f.
Equal 291, 438, 496-508, 825
Equal status 160f.
Equality 80, 146, 160, 309, 311, 403, 426,
496-508, 823
Equality of the sexes 563
Equate 338, 387
Equip 152, 606
Erase 312
Erastus 254
Erect 251, 373
Eros 539, 643
Erotic 584
Err 142
Erroneous 239
Error 95, 141, 214, 406-408, 457-461
Esau 116, 316-319, 369, 431, 782, 796, 847
Escape 136, 366 f., 393, 434, 445, 573
Eschatological 31, 33, 45, 47 f., 50, 56-65, 72,
100, 102, 109, 111, 117, 122, 130 f., 135, 147,
150, 162, 168, 186, 189 f., 192, 194, 200, 203,
205, 208, 228 f., 240-242, 244 f., 252, 261 f.,
264, 275 f., 288, 298, 300, 303, 312-315, 325 f.,
329, 337, 353-359, 367, 374-377, 382, 384,
386, 399, 402, 411 f., 420, 426, 429, 435, 479,
487, 491 f., 495, 499, 504, 518, 522, 524, 530f.,
534-536, 573, 580, 585, 591, 595, 602, 604,
609-611, 614, 625, 631 f., 640, 665 f., 670,
672, 676, 691, 693, 695 f., 698, 709, 727 f.,
733, 754, 767, 773, 779 f., 786, 793, 797,
807-809, 819, 823, 825, 842, 844, 875, 887 f.,
890-894, 900-935
Eschatology 47f., 110, 139, 376, 383-385,
388 f., 447, 517, 749, 764, 785, 824, 886, 890,
892, 894, 899, 901-935
Eschatology, Consistent 383, 902 f.
Eschatology, Futurist 384, 388, 924, 927-929
Eschatology, Realized 242, 384, 883, 904—
906, 927 f., 930
Eschatology, Thorough-going 383
Esoteric 401
Especial 838-840
Espouse 364
Essence 84, 287 f.
Essenes 207, 377, 579, 651, 785, 810f., 823
Essential 106, 335, 406, 438
Establish 69, 183, 489
Estate 254, 303, 317, 823, 844
Esteem 48, 130, 364, 438
Esther 116, 860
Estimate 365
Estrangement 468, 742
Etana 201
Etch 573
Eternal 52, 70, 72, 77, 86, 103, 105, 138, 179,
213, 230, 253, 271, 274, 290, 303, 355, 365,
412, 585, 792
Eternal destruction 61
Eternal habitations 382
Eternal life 32, 42, 47, 51, 79, 82 f., 120, 194,
207, 230, 265, 269, 273, 277, 280, 295, 300-
304, 388, 403 f., 415, 419, 480-483, 517, 535,
606, 632, 642, 654, 727, 770, 774, 824, 830,
833, 840, 905, 927 f., 930
Eternity 255, 276, 592, 719, 878, 906, 919
Ether 188
Ethical 65, 95, 98, 103, 116, 128, 132, 223,
232, 258 f., 262, 367, 377, 383, 391, 437, 439,
443, 475, 781 f.
Ethical values 224
Ethics 60, 65, 102, 123, 133, 140, 166, 394,
397, 544, 719, 858
Ethics, Negative 394
Ethiopia 367, 381
Ethiopian 349, 381
Ethnic origin 124, 305
Euboea 233
Eucharist 535, 591, 897
Eunuch 381, 385, 580, 710, 728
Euphemism 59, 148, 925, 927
Euphrates 555, 754
Eusebius 505
Eustathius of Antioch 506
Evade 254
Evaluation 103, 473, 847, 905
Evangelist 107-115, 187
Evangelize 83, 107-115
Eve 585, 691
Evening 136, 887
Event 137
Ever 60f.
Everlasting 357, 374
Everlasting God 67
Everyday 334
Evidence 140, 142, 368, 498
Evident 377
Evil 28, 36, 86, 94, 97-101, 103, 127, 150f.,
157f., 166, 181 f., 191, 193, 229, 236, 239,
266, 272, 274, 328, 350 f., 358, 366, 369, 387,
391, 396, 406, 419, 446, 458, 462 f., 490, 497,
568, 659, 676, 680, 716, 733, 794, 798, 811,
817, 868, 889 f., 928
Evil eye 553
Evil impulse 459
Evil one 135, 376, 709, 868
Evil powers 30, 193, 582
Evil spirits 75, 358, 383, 459, 630, 653
Evil-doers 101, 237, 893
Exaction 318, 364
Exaggerate 433
GENERAL INDEX
Exalt 197-205, 265, 417, 422 f.
Exaltation 122, 148, 184, 195, 198-204, 262 f.,
343, 603 f., 609 f., 718, 900, 903, 918, 920
Exalted 46, 58 f., 64, 84, 93 f., 119, 128, 147,
165, 194, 196, 198-200, 210, 225, 242, 262,
277, 329, 340, 386, 493, 503, 514, 516-518,
530, 604, 611, 786, 795, 921
Examination 341
Examine 140, 183, 362-367, 393, 856
Example 47, 95, 180, 219, 258, 262, 277,
284-293, 318, 350, 381, 400, 429, 471, 519,
619, 770, 773, 806, 811, 826
Exceed 128, 131
Excellence 98, 105
Excellent 102
Excess 314
Exchange 96, 503
Excite 350
Excited 244
Excitement 149, 181, 652
Exclude 286
Exclusion 312, 316, 530, 709, 813
Exclusive 273, 724, 888
Exclusiveness 73, 275, 494
Excommunication 33, 302
Excuse 138 f., 183, 366, 400, 408, 855-859
Execution 59, 291, 368, 370, 437, 527
Executor 368
Exegesis 406
Exemplary 102
Exempt 370, 578, 775
Exercise 267, 336, 361, 372
Exercise authority 606-611
Exhaustion 265, 295
Exhibit 291, 434, 488
Exhort 359, 417, 744
Exhortation 101, 106, 121, 123, 203, 214, 239,
263 f., 272, 423, 435, 438, 517, 598, 766, 912,
924
Exile 32, 100, 105, 226, 376, 541, 691, 801,
866, 889
Existence 52, 68, 100, 158, 286, 295, 307, 311,
314, 350, 361, 364, 394, 402, 453, 471, 476,
479, 493, 657, 662, 671, 719, 721
Existential 384, 399, 906
Exodus 99, 150, 227, 410, 492, 521, 534, 540,
602, 636 f., 640, 871, 889
Exorcism 519, 556, 560, 610
Exorcist 165
Expansion 359, 462
Expect 238-246, 295, 309, 313, 354, 359, 860.
921
Expectation 44, 95, 110, 238-246, 264, 294,
307, 325, 329, 337, 340, 377, 383, 385-387,
402, 420, 427, 606, 664 f., 674, 698, 709, 731,
737, 772 f., 857, 875, 894, 900, 902, 905, 912,
915, 923
Expediency 721
Expel 463
Expense 518
Expensive 293, 547
Experience 78, 103, 115 f., 211, 261, 269-271,
315, 351, 353 f., 359 f., 390-409, 420, 422f.,
445, 568, 593, 909, 923
Experienced 362
975
GENERAL INDEX
Experiential profession 405
Expert 222, 392, 456
Expiation 261, 766
Expiatory 582
Expire 368
Explain 362, 401, 555, 726-729, 907
Explanation 139, 169, 823
Exploitation 257, 308, 448, 737, 822
Expose 140, 284, 339, 350, 368, 448, 542
Expose to public disgrace 291
Exposition 174
Expositor 281
Expound 327, 362, 441, 448
Express 353, 431, 648, 884
Expression 115, 334, 391 417-424, 430, 547
Expulsion 847
Extend 131
Extension 197 f., 314, 316
Extent 197, 329, 683
Extermination 308
External 102 f., 136,336, 605
Extinguish 658
Extol 44, 201, 862
Extraction 660
Extra-marital 582
Extraordinary 621 f.
Extravagant 128
Extreme 55
Extremity 197
Exult 352-354, 436, 862
Exultation 352-354, 432
Fye 28, 110, 116, 153 f., 174, 176, 187, 192,
215 f., 279, 302, 350 f., 484, 487, 552, 579,
690, 726, 728, 873, 925
Eye of a needle 843
Eyesight 490
Eyewitness 645
Ezekiel 240, 583, 670, 711, 823
Ezekiel’s vision 97, 612 f.
Ezra 307, 439, 466, 636, 848
Fable 643, 645, 757
Face 46, 61, 161, 212f., 263, 326, 384, 395,
482, 484, 572, 793
Face of God 68, 215, 218, 312, 317
Fact 407
Factual narrative 643
Faculty 391
Fail 400, 406, 445
Failure 92, 165, 178, 263, 265, 282, 308, 315,
395, 399, 407, 435, 443, 478, 665, 820
Faint 265
Faint-hearted 259
Fair 102 f., 438
Fairness 497-500
Faith 31, 45, 47, 63f., 68, 73, 78, 94f., 99,
111 f., 117, 120-123, 125 f., 129-133, 135 f.,
142, 156, 162, 165, 168, 170, 175-177, 179 f.,
182 f., 186, 190, 194, 196, 198, 200, 207 f.,
213, 215, 217 f., 221, 223, 229, 239-243, 250 f.,
266, 273, 277, 280, 286, 297, 300-303, 310,
314 f., 318 f., 327, 330 f., 335, 338, 340, 342,
349, 354, 360 f., 364, 374 f., 396, 404 f., 407,
418, 443, 445-447, 449-452, 460, 462, 469-
471, 473, 482, 488, 504, 509, 515f., 535,
976
542 f., 545-549, 560, 563, 581, 595, 597, 603,
605 f., 615, 617 f., 620f., 624f., 636, 641 f.,
645, 654 f., 658, 672, 676, 678, 682, 708, 716-
721, 724, 729, 736, 766, 768, 771, 776, 786,
789, 793-795, 800, 804, 809, 812, 817 f., 827,
835, 839, 843 f., 857-859, 861, 868, 871, 873,
875, 877, 881, 884, 891, 894, 900, 906, 925 f.
Faithful 73, 136, 159, 229, 237, 239, 249,
308 f., 312, 315, 353, 358, 360, 367, 837
Faithfulness 77, 105, 119, 181, 240, 255, 261,
263, 315, 364, 396, 428, 498, 540, 797 f.
Faithless 36, 418, 479
Faithlessness 49, 307, 351, 541
Fake 556
Fall 45, 51, 123, 245, 287, 354, 366f., 394,
405, 420, 423, 460, 478, 504, 651, 681, 692,
705 f., 708, 710, 714 f., 764, 778, 791, 794,
888 f., 910, 914, 916 f., 930
Fall away 123, 285, 325, 708 f., 717, 775, 791
Fall from grace 120
Fall short 380
Fallen 237, 568, 723
Fallen angels 213
Fallen spirits 205
Fallible 439
Fallow 822
False 51, 169, 225, 314, 407, 473, 491, 606,
724, 921
False apostle 472, 677
False brother 472
False Christ 472, 915 f., 930
False doctrine 78, 133, 135, 171, 286, 625, 710
False expectations 902
False gods 73 f., 285 f., 453, 503
False hope 240
False lips 468
False name 648-656
False outlook 49
False peace 781
False prayer 864
False prophet 154, 208, 240, 458, 470, 472,
474, 629, 633, 651, 701, 754, 773, 778, 904
False reasoning 458
False security 841
False shepherd 413
False step 705-707
False teacher 94 f., 152, 221, 447, 453, 459 f.,
463, 472 f., 509, 518, 574, 579, 645, 766
False teaching 268, 509
False witness 470, 472, 686, 871
Falsehood 71 f., 492
Falsify 370
Fame 46, 265
Familiar 392, 395
Familiar spirit 554
Family '35, 92, 95, 206, 225, 234, 247 f., 250f.,
317, 363, 386 f., 428, 508, 538 f., 548 f., 582,
608, 655, 692, 711, 737, 789, 905
Family gods 317
Family ties 825
Family tree 35 f.
Famine 264-268, 274, 318, 688, 711, 730, 827,
836, 911
Fan 411
Fanatical 101
Fanaticism 386
Fantasy 181, 430
Far 52f.
Far off 113
Far-reaching 428
Farce 168
Farewell 169, 356, 549, 914
Farm 29
Farmer 245, 822
Fast 159, 216, 260, 264, 267, 272, 277, 358,
383, 534, 585, 714, 754, 864, 885, 893
Fat 154, 335
Fatal 138, 226, 435
Fate 61, 63, 66, 80, 120, 136, 138, 192, 205,
259, 298, 303, 393, 406, 416, 449, 457 f., 501,
510, 657, 662, 664-666, 920
Father in heaven 193
Father 46, 62-64, 71, 73, 75f., 78 f., 81, 83 f.,
101, 120, 125, 165, 170, 178f., 185 f., 192,
194 f., 203 f., 217, 229, 231 f., 243, 245, 247,
250, 254, 262, 269, 276, 278, 289 f., 303, 307,
317-319, 332, 342, 349, 358 f., 366, 381, 383,
386, 388, 401, 403 f., 426, 435, 437, 450, 486,
495, 497, 499 f., 505-507, 516 f., 541 f., 546,
548 f., 561, 566, S71, 578, 588, 604, 607, 610,
624 f., 645, 653, 655, 686, 718, 721-723, 725,
737 f., 770, 780 f., 799, 825, 830, 832, 834,
857, 867-873, 878f., 881, 883, 885, 896 f.,
899, 904, 917, 921, 927-930
Father of glory 46
Father of lights 495
Father of mercies 598
Fatherland 476
Fatherless 737 f.
Fatherly 106
Fault 63, 142, 144f., 215
Fault-finding 143
Favour 72, 115f., 119, 122, 167, 190, 257,
263, 308, 317, 356, 385, 428, 438, 485, 538,
547, 622, 815 f., 817-820, 837, 863
Fear 49, 64, 85, 90 f., 93-95, 99, 178, 180, 213,
217 f., 227, 239 f., 242, 245, 261, 263, 266,
271, 281, 349, 357-360, 391, 396, 419f.,
434, 449, 478, 484, 491, 594, 604, 621-626,
705, 736, 772, 807, 817, 819, 830, 855, 866,
894, 926
Fearful 238, 241, 244
Fearlessness 103, 734
Feast 226, 273, 277, 314, 354-356, 385, 410,
437, 441, 461, 463, 478, 521 f., 536, 674, 690,
716, 727, 737, 755, 783—788, 880, 885, 887, 927
Feast of the Covenant 441
Feast of Renewal of Covenant 441, 784
Feast of Tabernacles 217, 355, 644
Feast of Unleavened Bread 461, 463
Feast of Weeks 783
Feast-offering 410
Feature 335 f.
Feeble 211, 263
Feed 411, 543, 823
Feeding the five thousand 379, 523, 534, 630,
699
Feeding the four thousand 523, 630, 699
Feel 398
Feel compassion 594-598
GENERAL INDEX
Feel pain 419-421
Feeling 116, 180-184, 245, 312, 352, 357, 419,
547, 568, 599, 875
Feet-washing 303, 535, 754, 812
Felix 258, 451, 596, 707
Fellow citizen 794
Fellow heir 295-303
Fellowship 31, 39, 48, 75f., 78, 104, 121,
129 f., 152, 162, 237, 242, 249-251, 253,271 f.,
275, 277, 286, 302, 304, 319, 360, 386, 402-
404, 427, 444, 473, 478 f., 499, 520, 533, 536,
546 f., 549, 596, 653, 655, 705, 742, 762 f.,
768, 789, 795, 810, 812, 826 f., 859, 861, 879
Female 161, 287, 569-571
Ferment 461-463
Fertile 211, 265
Fertility 791
Fertility cult 539, 541, 573
Fertility gods 265
Fertility rites 69, 576, 583
Fervent 868
Festival 311, 326, 521, 676, 783-788
Festival of enthronement 374 f., 644
Festive 353-355, 358
Festus 369, 450
Few 427-429, 683, 692, 720
Fiction 152, 643
Fidelity 694
Field 30, 216, 245, 296, 833
Fiftieth 783
Fig 267, 382, 623, 630, 871, 912, 916f.
Fight 135, 138, 305, 360, 362
Figurative 53, 149, 166, 269, 738, 743-760
Figure 284, 287, 291, 337, 380, 743-756
Figure of speech 278
Fill 128, 195, 209, 215, 229, 358 f., 386, 855
Fill the hand 60, 149
Final 53, 56, 58, 100, 136, 154, 197, 300, 353,
357, 363, 403, 461, 625, 785
Final judgment 47, 202f., 208, 301, 366, 383
417, 597, 630, 665, 767, 826
Final time 58
Finality 718
Finally 55, 62f.
Financial help 328
Find 833
Find fault 139, 143
Find favour 116
Find out 398
Fine 98, 104, 577, 582
Finery 217
Finger 148
Finger of God 74, 150
Finish 59 f., 64, 382
Finite 77
Fire 45, 157, 193, 205, 208, 210, 304, 435, 452,
461, 485, 490, 493, 682, 746, 779, 785, 836
Firm 129, 153, 267, 489, 611, 659, 706, 716
Firmament 184, 188-190, 192 f.
Firmness 123
First 44, 55, 157, 550, 693, 703, 720, 725, 729
First and last 55, 57f., 70, 80, 279, 282, 482
First-born 310, 317, 491, 637, 703, 798, 835
First-fruits 40, 48, 186, 226, 242 f., 288, 672,
675, 783, 884
977
GENERAL INDEX
Fish 32f., 233, 351 f., 624, 630, 662, 685,
728
Fist 148, 150
Fit 102, 385
Fitting 101, 212, 668 f., 683
Five 685, 689 f., 692 f.
Flamen Dialis 461
Flattery 116, 259, 470
Flavour 211
Flee 215
Fleeting 475
Flesh 62, 71, 75, 79 f., 91, 94, 163, 169, 171,
185, 209, 218, 225, 233, 235, 242, 269 f., 282,
339, 349, 366, 378, 398 f., 404, 445 f., 459,
477, 504 f., 521, 523, 532, 558, 565 f., 571 f.,
579, 587, 602, 611, 617, 668, 673, 682, 709,
722, 806, 816, 818, 836, 919, 925, 928 f.
Flesh and blood 599
Flies 637
Flight 317, 350, 461
Flock 31, 34, 56, 383, 412f., 429, 519, 586,
721, 723, 819, 832, 838, 841, 928
Flood 205, 382, 569, 613, 681 f.
Flourish 211, 360
Flow 119
Flute 436
Flutter 422 f.
Focus 325-329
Fodder 211
Foe 63, 83
Fold 31, 586
Follow 30, 133 f., 160, 173, 177, 262 f., 291,
301 f., 350, 413, 431, 444, 825, 833, 846
Follower 57, 94, 96, 112, 279 f., 311, 339, 341-
343, 368, 413, 426, 624, 806, 920
Folly 127, 143, 148, 171, 181, 189, 391, 400,
479, 620
Fond 547-550
Food 201, 218, 264-277, 318, 370, 402, 434,
oS 475, 590, 631, 682, 709 f., 801, 811, 831,
Food of immortality 534
Fool 239, 430, 583, 833
Foolish 430, 619, 658
Foot 28, 149, 212, 282, 349, 369, 414 f.
Footstep 358, 452
Footstool 74, 245, 611
Forbearance 63, 79, 256-259, 700, 764-767,
834, 863
Forbearing 652
Forbid 154, 206, 220-223, 244, 296, 446
Forbidden 458, 573, 811
Forbidden degrees of marriage 577
Force 67, 258, 540, 601-606, 663 f., 812
Forefather 378
Forehead 572, 864, 869
Foreign 35, 99, 159, 251, 288, 308, 328, 349,
ee 540, 735, 739-742, 790, 794, 801, 803,
05
Foreign policy 320
Foreigner 305, 309-311, 335, 519, 735, 788-
790, 823
Foreknowledge 118, 397, 608, 819
Foreman 595
Forensic 122
978
Foreordained 299
Forerunner 109, 305, 353
Foresee 352, 430, 602, 917
Foreshadow 313
Foresight 318
Forestall 415
Foretaste 271
Forfeit 155
Forget 272, 275, 366, 440, 606, 781
Forgiveness 71 f., 116, 122f., 137, 156, 168,
212, 214, 237, 239 f., 270, 302, 332, 366, 386,
400, 407, 448 f., 494, 521, 523 f., 533, 536,
543, 545 f., 595, 631, 654 f., 667, 668, 691, .
696, 732 f., 767, 769, 771, 787, 813, 861, 868,
870 f., 898
Forgiving 652
Form 67, 74, 80, 82, 99, 125, 142, 203, 243,
284, 286-289, 290 f., 488, 500, 502, 590, 657,
673, 739, 768
Formal 276, 287, 312
Formalism 812
Former 419
Formerly 713-716
Formula 279, 281 f., 319, 330, 339f., 356,
424, 552, 619, 653, 655, 659, 729, 797, 897
Fornication 586 f., 677 f., 682
Forsake 387, 450
Forsaken 82, 738
Fortress 324, 801
Fortunate 840
Fortune 49, 108, 116, 146, 148, 320, 594,
898
Forty 689, 696, 697, 893
Forty-two months 688
Forum 142
Foundation 64, 129, 189, 217, 245, 249, 302,
314, 452, 582, 659, 706
Foundation of Salem 324
Foundation-stone 652
Four 685, 687, 688 f., 690, 697, 769
Four hundred 689, 697
Foursquare 700
Fourteen 685, 691
Fourth 693, 711
Fourth philosophy 810
Fracture 414
Fragment 32, 296
Fragmentary 304
Fragrance 293 f.
Frailty 498
Frame of mind 616-620
Frankincense 293 f.
Frankness 734-737
Fraud 470
Free 40, 42, 63, 74, 122, 126, 143, 145, 158, 164,
166, 188, 245, 259, 265, 306, 329, 367, 406,
415, 420, 453, 595, 652, 715, 718, 788, 820,
890
Free-will offering 329
Freedom 63, 103, 132, 160f., 245, 265, 273,
275, 307, 329, 335, 393, 402 f., 451, 516, 605,
607, 609, 611, 631, 706, 727, 734-736, 873
Freedom of choice 606-611
Freedom of Israel 308
Freedom of Jerusalem 308
Freedom-loving 660
Freeman 412
Fresh 670, 674-676
Fretful 599
Friend 63, 83, 256, 356, 359, 392, 538, 541 f.,
547-550, 585, 663, 735, 881
Friend of the bridegroom 383, 549, 585
Friendliness 105, 311, 622
Friendship 134, 538, 547-550, 683, 776, 798
Frighten 621
Frogs 637
Frontier 337
Fructify 188
Frugal 419
Fruit 32, 44, 104, 130f., 154, 230, 245, 261,
267, 271, 343, 360, 397, 432, 458, 545, 623,
662, 693, 711, 736, 754, 761 f., 771, 781 f.,
809, 871, 912, 916
Fruit of the light 495
Fruitful 128, 193, 232
Fruitfulness 711
Fruitless 32, 142
Frustrate 435
Frustration 828
Fuel 710f.
Fulfil 59 f., 62-64, 77, 127, 132, 149, 154, 156,
165, 168, 235, 238, 297, 313, 328 f., 332, 342,
374, 410, 417 f., 442 f., 445 f., 470, 474, 543,
546, 642, 665, 716, 812 f., 819, 926
Fulfilment 39, 59, 62f., 73, 82, 86f., 100,
108-111, 170, 174, 195, 203, 240-242, 245,
258, 262, 281, 294, 299 f., 303, 314, 327, 338,
351, 356 f., 379, 403, 441, 443, 490, 585, 691,
714, 732, 786, 819, 909, 920 f., 923 f., 927
Full 416
Full of idols 284-286
Fullness 39, 67, 77-79, 83, 87, 106, 119, 131,
163, 187, 197, 211, 246, 251, 257, 342 f., 359,
453, 477, 504, 629, 640, 653, 669, 690, 715,
722, 782 f., 798 f., 819, 834, 844, 855
Fully-grown 59
Fumes 294
Fumigation 293
Function 59, 121, 147, 181, 230, 243, 255, 290,
296, 328, 391, 414, 445, 447
Functionary 327
Fundamental 43
Funeral 416, 418
Funeral song 418
Fungi 465
Hurnace 628
Furnishings 291
Furtherance 128
Fury 854f.
Futile 239, 242, 399, 683
Futility 119, 400, 473, 793
Future 35-37, 40, 56-58, 62, 65, 102, 108,
119, 122f., 142, 203, 215, 218, 225, 231,
239 f., 242 f., 244, 254, 266 f., 271, 288, 295,
298, 300 f., 306, 313, 319, 325, 333, 337f.,
350, 353 f., 365, 367, 376, 382, 384-386, 388,
393, 396, 415, 417f., 420f., 423, 461, 515,
517, 521, 532, 606, 665 f., 670, 717, 732, 737,
789 f., 797, 823, 844, 886-888, 891, 900, 905,
908 f., 911, 917, 921, 924-926, 928 f.
GENERAL INDEX
Gaal 521
Gad 317
Gadarene swine 631
Gadites 638
Gain 288, 835, 837-840, 845, 918
Galatians 559, 573, 625, 826, 828, 899
Galileans 740
Galilee 328, 332 f., 381, 767, 804, 849, 918
Gall 27-29, 267, 295, 831, 836
Gallio 369, 451, 766
Garden 210, 266, 274, 760
Garden of Eden 298, 761, 889
Garment 40, 188, 226, 263, 299, 486, 491, 493,
556, 671, 673, 714
Garrison 134
Gate 29-31, 207, 210, 280, 363, 441, 652,
733 f., 807
Gather 31-35, 131, 161, 194, 226, 237, 310,
328, 359, 413, 531, 829-836, 866, 928
Gayomart 645
Gaza 848
Ge 188
Gehenna 205-210, 298
Gehinnom 208 f.
Gem 556
Gematria 683-685
Genealogy 35f., 124, 318, 331, 467, 664f.,
684 f., 691, 694
Genera 158
Generation 35-39, 54, 248, 271, 365, 381, 387,
582, 584, 629 f., 635, 680, 682, 689, 691 f.,
696, 766, 798, 892, 910-912, 916 f., 923
Generation of vipers 311
Generative 657
Generosity 49, 98, 400, 694, 857
Generous 539, 652
Gentile 31,37,77, 83, 85f., 94, 111-113, 126f.,
129, 156, 163, 178, 183, 237, 251, 261, 275,
294, 302, 310, 312, 315-317, 325, 328, 356,
359, 368, 378, 385, 400, 413, 443 f., 446, 453,
495, 499, 519, 558, 567, 573, 581, 587, 592,
596 f., 641, 655, 664, 682, 688 f., 695, 702,
712, 721 f., 728-731, 736, 741, 773, 788-805,
827, 844, 867, 880, 888, 898, 922 f.
Gentile Christians 328f., 398, 437, 660f.,
732, 795
Gentile Churches 315 f., 329
Gentle 218, 256-259
Gentleman 562
Gentleness 105, 256-259, 360
Genuine 102, 105, 280, 468-470, 574, 858
Geological eras 889
Gerasene 623, 699
Gerizim 591, 878, 927
Gershom 636f. |
Gesture 150-152, 157, 630, 859
Gethsemane 32, 82, 178, 420, 429, 624,
710-713, 851, 868, 871 f., 911
Ghetto 309
Ghost 281, 552-562
Gideon 260, 374, 428, 627, 777
Gift 39-44, 62f., 74, 76f., 79, 83, 96, 102,
106-108, 115-123, 152, 162, 167, 169, 178,
186 f., 194, 210, 218, 228, 230, 240, 242f.,
253, 255f., 266, 270f., 275, 277, 288,
979
GENERAL INDEX
Gift continued
294 f., 297, 302, 310, 326, 329, 336, 355f., 360,
374, 385 f., 400, 410, 419, 445, 447, 469, 475,
480 f., 492, 498 f., 533, 540, 548, 550, 566,
580 f., 590, 594-598, 602, 611, 617f., 632,
638, 641, 650, 675, 687, 693, 718, 721, 723,
728, 771, 777f., 780 f., 785, 787, 789, 794,
798, 812f., 816, 824, 826, 828, 830, 832, 834f.,
841, 844, 852, 859, 861, 868, 873, 877, 881,
883, 885, 918, 928, 930
Gilgal 225
Gischala 804
Give 39-44, 63, 116, 121, 131, 186, 269, 277,
280, 282, 357, 359, 411, 499, 594-598
Give account 137, 244, 369 f.
Give away 367, 596
Give birth 318, 329
Give God glory 46, 816
Give to drink 274-277
Give life 280, 476-484
Give lot 299
Give in marriage 575-582
Give mind to 616-620
Give up 156, 217, 241, 244, 361, 367 f.
Give way 256
Giver 827
Giving 594-598, 694, 827f.
Glad 356-361, 436
Glad tidings 107-115
Gladden 354-356
Gladness 107, 353, 354-356, 590
Gleaming 484-486
Gloom 215
Gloomy 206
Glorification 203, 372, 400, 787, 809
Glorified Christ 48, 289, 332, 625, 787, 819
Glorify 44, 79, 128, 229, 272, 306, 352 f., 360,
394, 425, 606, 819, 862, 874
Glorious 44, 263
Glory 44-52, 71, 75, 78f., 82f., 112, 119,
131, 146, 160-162, 176, 190, 196, 203 f., 213,
217 f., 229, 235, 240, 242-245, 272, 278, 289 f.,
303, 328 f., 336, 354, 357, 360, 366, 377, 380,
388, 397, 420, 425, 473, 482, 485-488, 493,
503, 543, 546, 563, 605, 607, 614f., 627 f.,
632, 637, 641, 650, 653 f., 669, 672, 694, 696,
718, 724, 736, 774, 779, 781, 834, 839, 844,
863, 877, 894, 909, 916, 928 f.
Glossolalia (— Speak in tongues)
Glue 348 f.
Gluttony 271, 274
Gnash the teeth 416f., 421
Gnaw 421
Gnomic discourse 890
Gnosis 393
Gnostic 36, 72, 159, 171, 185, 187, 195, 219,
221, 248, 253, 265, 280, 286, 310, 314, 393 f.,
403 f., 439, 447, 449, 457, 481 f., 506, 557,
584, 608, 655, 674, 677 f., 683, 701, 830, 840,
919, 928
Gnosticism 60, 129, 158, 219, 251, 391, 393 f.,
401, 404, 419, 448, 453, 477, 480, 485, 490 f.,
493, 495, 567, 645 f., 717, 719, 906
Gnostics 397, 601
Go astray 457-461, 708
980
Go away 359
Go before 412
Go forward 128
Goto law 365
Go up 184-187, 326
Goad 155
Goal 48, 52-66, 75, 77, 95f., 99, 106, 120,
130, 157, 162, 194 f., 204, 231, 241, 243-245,
252, 287, 313, 402, 404, 443, 445, 453, 569,
665, 703, 715, 741, 772, 806f., 817, 819 f.,
886, 891, 908
Goat 148, 151, 296, 413, 606
Goblet 274
God 66-90, 127, 160, 183, 193, 197-200, 215,
231, 284, 287-289, 299, 304-307, 312, 343,
355, 396-400, 408, 432, 501-503, 508-514,
516, 519, 521, 539, 565, 567, 576, 602, 609,
619, 627, 631, 635-638, 646, 648-661, 674,
687, 718, 720 f., 725, 727, 736, 765, 772, 777,
794, 813, 815-819, 832, 842, 855-882, 884 f.,
888 f., 891-894, 898 f., 902, 904-906, 908 f.,
911, 916-923, 927, 929
God Almighty 67
God Most High 67, 375, 591
God, Names of 67 f., 318, 375, 649-656
God of Abraham 73
God of Bethel 67
God of glory 46
God of heaven 193
God of Isaac 73
God of Israel 67, 72 f., 492,.512, 796 f., 830,
863, 867, 876, 909
God of Jacob 73
God of Seeing 67
God of this world 381, 494, 609
God, To have 78
God-fearer 85
God-fearing 85, 91, 492
Goddess 85
Goddess of fate 303
Godforsaken 86
Godhead 70, 506, 819
Godless 49, 53, 56, 71, 91, 155, 239, 265, 304,
310, 312, 405 f., 417, 442, 468-470, 475, 479,
486, 549, 705, 707, 777, 810
Godlessness 91, 94, 265, 474
Godliness 85, 90-95, 131, 232, 439, 468, 621,
659
Godly 91, 94, 181, 475, 485
Godly sorrow 420
Gods 66~—90, 92, 164, 166f., 184, 188, 224f.,
232, 234 f., 237, 239, 259 f., 265, 271, 284—
287, 309, 396, 407, 425, 430, 432, 439, 452,
498, 510, 564, 572, 612, 633, 644, 649, 657,
662-664, 705, 722, 859, 871, 876
Gog and Magog 701, 792
Gold 28, 95-98, 102, 235, 349, 572, 574, 683,
728, 795, 831, 836, 844, 852
Golden 95
Golden age 95f., 337, 888
Golden calf 356, 637
Golden Rule 442
Goldsmith 95
Golgotha 718
Gomer 754
Gomorrah 366, 767
Gong 97
Good 62, 86, 98-107, 115 f., 118, 130, 157 f.,
178, 182 f., 206, 239, 241, 243, 269, 271 f.,
274, 279-281, 286, 288, 334, 350, 357, 367,
369, 391, 394 f., 403, 445-447, 476, 490, 497,
506, 659, 683, 714, 719, 770, 781, 806f., 811,
815, 817, 844, 857, 866, 889
Good deeds 425
Good health 356
Good news 107-115, 387, 410, 611
Good pleasure 817-820
Good sense 616-620
Good turn 115
Good works 83, 95, 101, 117, 129, 191, 242,
266, 384, 446, 597, 645, 830, 834 f., 842, 844,
846
Goodness 72, 76, 79, 98, 105, 139, 270, 290,
386, 397, 718, 812, 905
Goods 255, 361, 844 f.
Goodwill 115, 358, 817-820
Gospel 30, 43, 75, 77f., 107-115, 119, 122,
126, 129, 149, 156, 161, 169, 176, 179, 214,
221 f., 235, 242, 250, 254 f., 263, 302, 328 f.,
338, 356-360, 367, 379, 387, 404, 435, 443,
451, 453, 494, 559, 569, 597, 604f., 610 f.,
625, 627, 645 f., 665, 673, 678, 702, 706, 709,
726, 741, 780, 782, 786, 794 f., 812, 818, 825,
ae 844, 875, 899, 901, 903, 906, 910 f., 913,
5
Gospel according to the Egyptians 219
Gospel according to the Hebrews 219
Gospel, Another 112, 766
Gospel of Philip 310
Gospel of Thomas 168, 219, 462, 751 f., 757
Govern 374, 381, 663
Governing 158
Government 373, 607 f., 801-804, 859
Governor 254, 377, 511, 608
Grace 39, 42, 44, 72-79, 83, 94, 106, 115-124,
129, 131, 139, 152, 183, 198, 208, 215, 243 f.,
253, 255, 261, 264, 302, 356, 360, 364, 366,
368, 393 f., 396, 400, 445, 498 f., 504, 516,
519, 522, 536, 540, 543, 546, 550, 565, 581,
594, 597 f., 649, 660, 699, 708, 713, 718, 741,
769, 771, 791, 797, 815, 818, 826 f., 842-844,
859, 862 f., 866, 878, 928
Graceful 115
Gracious 68, 77, 86, 105, 115 f., 216, 240, 242,
275, 357, 360, 395, 598, 624, 652, 812, 819
Graciousness 256-259
Grade 50
Graft 660, 712 f., 794
Grain 32
Granary 830
Grandeur 92, 261, 424427
Grant 40f., 116, 175, 353, 368, 438
Grant life 119
Grapes 32 f., 737
Grasp 391, 406
Grass 27, 210f.
Grasshopper 831
Grateful 115, 121, 395
Gratitude 108, 115, 202, 353, 400, 444, 668,
825, 874
GENERAL INDEX
Grave 138, 206, 328, 331, 341, 418, 726f.,
780, 924, 928
Graven image 226
Graven object 573 f.
Grease 335
Great 130, 363, 369, 424-427, 428
Great commandment
Great God 82
Greater 426
Greatest 427
Greatness 105, 197, 272, 316, 426, 429
Greece 124, 166, 802 f., 830, 898, 918
Greed 115, 421
Greek 124-127, 159, 302, 315, 321, 430, 657,
707, 790, 802, 805, 847-851, 876, 879
Greet 328, 517, 549, 779
Greeting 170, 352, 356-358, 516, 549, 597,
777, 780 f.
Gregarious 412
Gregory Nazianzen 505
Grief 157, 227, 360, 416-420, 421-423
Grieve 260, 421-423, 807
Grind the teeth 421
Groan 416-424, 862, 884, 925
Ground 67, 104, 137-139, 143, 232, 253, 298,
302, 318, 359 f., 439
Group 306, 310-313, 315 f.
Grove 233
Grovelling 259
Grow 123, 128-131, 162, 201, 223, 252 f., 271,
656 f., 668
Grow old 713-716
Grow up 270, 369
Growl 421, 423
Grown 65, 425
Growth 128-131, 169, 185, 230, 360, 400
Gruesome 206
Grumble 144f., 175, 261, 423, 771
Guarantee 40, 120, 243, 265, 272, 300, 382,
406, 789, 839
Guarantor 239
Guard 132-137, 177, 379, 413, 438, 864
Guardian 161, 213, 215, 254, 307, 581, 737,
838
Guardian angel 194
Gudea 679
Guest 32, 521, 712, 825
Guidance 215, 296, 460, 875
Guide 70, 216, 364, 412, 509
Guile 270
Guileless 470-474
Guilt 72, 78, 137-154, 151, 155, 166, 175, 197,
215, 225-227, 239, 263, 366, 386, 400, 405 f.,
416 f., 420, 457, 460, 544, 567 f., 583 f., 768 f.
Guilty 137, 237, 363, 365, 368, 370, 407, 463,
667, 727
Gulf 185
Gum _ 293 f., 349
147, 426
Habiru 305
Habit 437 f., 547, 790
Habitation 247-251, 925 f.
Habitual 391
Hades 29f., 85, 186, 205-210, 284, 433, 482,
490, 701, 727, 731
981
GENERAL INDEX
Hadrian 308, 333, 792, 898
Hagar 452, 755
Haggadah 534, 661
Haggai 337
Hail 189, 356, 637, 830
Hair 50, 159 f., 162, 197, 465, 657, 661
Halachah 610, 811
Hallel 522, 528
Hallel cup 522
Hallelujah 878
Hallow 74, 229, 650, 653
Halt 359, 415
Ham 622
Hammer 97
Hammurabi 555, 582, 612, 677
Hamper 221-223, 414
Hand 28, 60, 77, 144, 146-153, 163, 188, 190,
192, 194, 196, 201, 203 f., 225, 230, 235, 237,
252 f., 282, 285, 287, 367 f., 378, 380, 385,
411, 414 f., 423, 513, S71 f., 614, 710, 726,
813, 820, 839, 866, 869, 877
Hand down 311
Hand of God 49, 72, 86, 188, 194, 196, 199,
204, 614
Hand on_ 171
Hand over 119, 361, 367 f., 543
Handiwork 574
Handle 270, 275
Handle shamefully 50
Handmaid 119, 262
Handshake 146
Handwriting 146, 148
Hang 291, 321
Hannah _ 116, 260, 856
Hansen’s disease 464
Happiness 60, 108, 352, 419, 484, 490, 780 f.
Harass 413, 599
Harassment 374
Harbour 102, 660
Hard 97, 153-156, 178, 183 f., 304, 388, 407,
710, 843
Harden the heart 37
Hardened, hardening 153-156, 174, 178, 304,
315, 741
Harder 281
Hardhearted 153, 155
Hardness 98, 153-156, 182
Hardness of heart 180-184, 627, 834
Hardship 419, 544
Harem 578
Harlot 349f., 365, 475, 486, 575, 582 f., 587,
653, 692, 795
Harm 28, 862
Harmful 27
Harmless 286
Harmony 62, 78, 163, 363, 439, 619, 658, 660,
780-782
Harshness 256
Harvest 35, 265, 271, 359, 364, 514, 662, 737,
783, 785, 861
Harvest festival
Hasidim 810
Hasmoneans 308, 310, 337, 810, 812, 849 f.
Hasten 246, 315, 385
982
463, 783
Hat 160, 162
Hate 86, 100, 288, 310, 318, 386, 540, 549, 659,
824, 838
Hatra-Khorsabad-Nimrud 679
Hatred 105, 180, 261, 309, 316, 359, 403, 405,
420, 449, 473, 478, 548, 625, 806, 808
Haughtiness 263, 618
Haunt 136
Have in view 132
Hay 210f.
He who is 69
Head 129, 151, 156-163, 184, 195, 212 f., 232,
234, 243 f., 249f., 259, 268, 363, 370, 388,
562 f., 568, 571, 579, 661, 668 f., 691, 722 f.
Head of the corner 159
Head of gold 96
Head-covering 213
Heal 150, 153 f., 163-172, 414, 466, 561, 630,
633, 754, 875
Healing 85, 121, 141, 151, 163-172, 185, 379,
396, 448, 464, 466, 553, 560, 595, 597, 601 f.,
606, 610, 623, 625, 628, 630f., 665 f., 712,
715, 801, 865, 920
Healer 490
Health 102, 163, 352, 356f., 478, 552, 777,
781
Healthy 102, 169-171
Heap 157
Hear 91, 110, 154-156, 172-180, 203, 257,
285, 313, 358 f., 366, 369, 383, 395, 398, 405,
413, 427, 440, 443, 473, 720, 812, 857 f., 860.
862, 864, 866, 868, 877, 929
Hearer 269, 379, 459
Heart 40, 60, 63, 96, 105, 123, 139, 150, 154,
155 f., 176-178, 180-184, 197, 217f., 225,
262, 285, 306, 351, 355, 365, 420f., 423 f., 444,
446, 468, 470, 492, 565-567, 571, 580, 588,
599 f., 641, 670, 727, 736, 831 f., 855, 857, 864
Heart of the earth 351 f.
Heartless 542
Heat 601, 628
Heathen 73 f., 77, 127, 284-286, 296, 307 f.,
349 f., 385, 396, 400, 418, 426, 503, 581, 650,
660, 684, 705, 790-795, 876 f.
Heathenism 407
Heaven 29, 31, 37, 40, 42, 45 f., 48, 70f., 74,
77, 84, 96, 149, 164, 174, 184-196, 199-202,
204 f., 209 f., 215, 225, 245, 262, 269, 279 f.,
282, 299 f., 317, 319, 329, 349, 351, 353, 355,
358 f., 363, 376f., 380, 383, 391, 452, 459,
486, 494, 499, 555, 614 f., 619, 642, 646, 650,
652 f., 655, 688f., 691, 727-730, 734, 761,
764, 804, 818 f., 836, 873, 918-920, 928, 931
Heaven of heavens 189
Heaven, New (— New heaven)
Heavenly 144, 147, 281, 294, 326, 332, 387,
925
Heavenly army 191
Heavenly beings 376
Heavenly calling 62
Heavenly gift 270
Heavenly host 602
Heavenly Jerusalem (— Jerusalem, Heavenly)
Heavenly man 192, 646
Heavenly powers 608 f.
Heavenly sanctuary 64, 80
Heavenly wall 646
Heavenly world 48
Heavy 154
Heavy-laden 262
Hebraism 175, 832, 837, 876, 895
Hebrew 125 f., 304-323, 556, 849, 928
Hebrews 635
Hecataeus 639
Hecate 485
Hedonism 677
Heed 172, 351, 370
Heel 431
Height 184f.,
610
Heir 122, 183, 238, 247, 295-304, 570, 828
Heiress 577
Heliopolis 639
Hell 30, 37, 85, 136, 143, 184, 186, 188, 191,
196 f., 204, 205-210, 265, 298, 370, 385, 490 f.
733 f., 764, 791 f., 931
Hellanicus of Tripolis 506
Hellas 898
Hellen 124
Hellene 790
Hellenism 277, 307, 311, 324, 372 f., 638, 664
Hellenist 124, 311, 740
Hellenistic 400, 403, 660, 811, 849, 862, 898,
900, 926, 928
Hellenistic Christianity 785
Hellenistic Judaism 396, 638, 651, 661, 745,
804, 810, 821, 823
Hellenistic period 311
Hellenistic philosophy 399
Hellenizing 70, 125, 372
Hellespont 233
Helmet 97, 244, 925
Help 71, 83, 105, 116, 121, 128, 141, 175, 230,
255, 257, 261, 265-267, 299, 326, 331 f., 353,
355, 363, 423, 428 f., 446, 468, 593, 600, 622,
628, 631, 654, 710, 806, 820 f., 825, 844, 855,
860, 877
Helper 262, 281, 332, 363, 576, 709, 724
Helpless 168, 260, 413, 435, 737, 813
Hendiadys 878
Hephaestos 115
Hera 85
Heracles 643, 849
Herald 108, 111, 682
Herb 210f., 522, 558, 693 f., 813
Hercules 232, 430
Herd 410, 412, 841
Hereditary 372, 374
Heresy 171, 405, 432, 449, 559
Heretic 152, 312, 557, 574, 866, 903
Heretical 358, 406, 608, 718, 920
Heritage 295-304, 311, 845
Hermeneutics 907
Hermes 85, 214, 503
Hermodios 372
Hero 92, 498, 562, 602
Herod 235, 462, 799, 812, 849
Herod AgrippaI 378, 511, 789, 850
Herod Agrippa II 378, 451, 511, 695 |
Herod Antipas 63, 378, 383, 550, 801, 849
195 f., 197-205, 209, 225, 423,
‘Herod the Great
GENERAL INDEX
Herod Archelaus 849
308, 378, 511, 550, 578, 849
Herod the Tetrarch (— Herod Antipas)
Herodians 462, 850
Herodotos 247, 557, 643, 678
Hesitate 374
Hezekiah 320, 627
Hidden 83, 112, 147, 149, 176, 183, 190, 197,
211-220, 255, 263, 288, 354, 377, 397, 401,
461 f., 490, 762, 833 f.
Hide 211-220, 240, 312, 401, 412, 773, 835
High 198-200, 617 f.
High-handed 510
High place 199
High position 200
High priest (— Priest, High)
High priestly prayer 654, 723, 929
High-sounding 198
Higher 259
Higher families 195
Highest 71, 198-200
Hilary 507
Hilkiah 555
Hill 225, 262, 326, 329
Hillel 311, 442, 579
Hinder 220-223, 285, 418, 435, 708, 781, 843
Hindrance 220, 864, 868, 875
Hinge 59
Hinnom 208
Hippocrates 414, 464
Hippolytus 506
Hire 317, 386
Historian 335
Historical 56, 100,
646, 695, 718
Historicity 621, 812
Historiography 890
History 37, 48, 52, 69f., 72, 100, 109, l16f.
119, 129, 158, 190, 194 f., 204, 206, 229, 240,
260, 262, 268, 278 f., 285, 289, 295, 297 f.,
300, 305 f., 310, 312, 314, 316, 320, 328, 331,
340, 342 f., 353, 361, 393 f., 396 f., 404, 407,
425, 442, 472, 509, 514, 540, 566, 590, 609,
622, 626, 644, 663- 666, 691 f., 697, 714, 716—
718, 727, 784, 863, 888, 891, 906-908, 914,
917-919, 922, 927 f., 931
History of ideas 490
History of Judah 306-308
History of Israel 35, 70, 306-308, 315, 319,
797, 807, 862, 871
History of religions
Hivites 636
Hodayot 622
Hold 64, 133, 135, 142, 244, 611
Hold back 222
Hold fast 301, 315, 350, 654
Hold out 240
Hold to 451-453
Hold together 263, 546
Holiness 76, 79, 91, 129, 144, 217, 224-232,
236-238, 244, 253, 307, 415, 447, 492, 676,
689, 782, 807, 878
Holy 56, 70-72, 78, 91-93, 129, 187 f., 223-
238, 248, 253; 293. 302, 307, 324, 326, 445,
473, 549, 650, 653, 669, 862 f., 865, 868, 885
983
112, 289, 316, 628, 636,
223, 453, 493
GENERAL INDEX
Holy city 231, 327, 700, 803
Holy communion 644
Holy of holies 190, 230, 293 f.
Holy nation 380, 839
Holy One 71, 221, 227, 231, 238, 541
Holy One of Israel 225 f.
Holy ones 298, 302
Holy people 226 f., 307, 380, 797 f.
Holy place 230, 325, 328, 718, 866
Holy race 232
Holy servant 229
Holy Spirit (— Spirit, Holy)
Holy war 225, 374, 650, 830, 888
Homage 92f., 186, 194, 201, 615, 859, 876 f.
Home 193 f., 244, 251, 305, 394, 461, 575,
788, 818, 839 f.
Home, Be at 788-790
Homeland 194, 266, 311, 788
Homeless 386, 822
Homosexual 569-571
Homosexuality 142
Honorarium 50
Honour 44-52, 73, 80,91 f., 94, 101, 105, 116,
119, 127, 134, 146, 159, 191, 203 f., 229, 257,
265, 278, 295, 305, 319, 334, 336, 340, 343,
349, 352, 363, 367, 417, 424, 435, 538, 550,
es 712, 772, 806, 840, 844, 863, 871, 878,
90
Honourable 91, 95, 105, 587, 654
Hope 47, 51, 54, 73, 82. 111, 118 f., 122 f.,
142, 178, 208, 218, 238-246, 249, 263, 266,
301, 307, 313, 315, 337, 339, 342, 357, 360,
366, 377, 385, 399, 418 f., 447, 479, 495, 515,
531, 545, 550, 654, 674, 736, 764, 771-
774, 776, 783, 789, 791, 807, 809, 822, 842,
858, 874, 887, 896, 901, 909, 914, 919,
925 f.
Hope of glory 47
Hope of Israel 772
Hopeless 118, 215, 283, 413, 418 f.
Hopelessness 131, 138
Horace 239
Horeb 281, 636f., 892
Horizon 198
Horn 689, 693, 754
Horror 622
Horse 189, 226, 232, 257, 538, 550, 572, 574
noes 240, 374, 396, 541, 576, 580, 583, 597,
75
Hosea’s children 581, 797
Hosius of Cordova 506
Hospice 823
Hospitality 358, 538, 547-550, 590, 807
Host 69, 189
Host of heaven 189, 368
Hostile 124, 150, 239, 309, 394, 491, 712, 739-
742, 816
Hostility 311, 806 f., 827
Hot 727, 844, 881
Hour 55, 217, 359, 384, 892, 917, 927
House 40, 129, 189, 193, 236, 247-256, 285,
290, 428, 489, 509, 714, 732, 738, 832, 837,
925, 929
House church 250, 550
984
House of David 319, 336f., 342, 374, 730,
732 f., 866
House of God 67, 194, 317, 327
House of holiness 312
House of Israel 226, 305, 314 f., 320, 400, 695,
732
House of prayer 325
House of steadfastness
House of truth 312
House-owner 608
House-steward 254
Household 83, 122, 247-257, 318, 487, 510,
562, 794
164
Household servant
Householder 714
Human 355, 359, 362, 439, 564-569, 659
Humanistic attitude 99
Humanitarian 43, 667
Humanity 57 f., 126, 267, 287, 349, 441, 564 f.,
607, 671, 799, 912
Humanity of Jesus 36
Humble 149, 203, 225, 244, 256-264, 417, 422,
427, 435, 617 f., 821, 825, 856, 864
Humble-minded 259-264, 617 f.
Humbling 202, 265
Humiliate 260, 430
Humiliation 203 f., 212, 259-264, 903
Humility 117, 200 f., 203, 240, 256-264, 423,
428 f., 617 f., 771, 822, 828, 859, 862, 919
Humour 430-436
Hundred and forty-four thousand 320, 700
Hunger 264-277, 463, 478, 521, 523f., 536,
596, 633, 665
Hungry 157, 237, 263, 264-277, 386, 824 f.
Hunt 805-807
Hur 637
Husband 50f., 349, 400, 512, 539, 541, 549,
562 f., 582 f., 880
Hygienic purpose 461
Hymenaeus 550
Hymn 45, 49, 105, 261 f., 270, 289f., 343,
358, 445, 500, 504, 528, 614, 618, 775, 782,
874, 877 f., 926
Hyperbole 385
Hypocrisy 43, 448, 462, 467-474, 813, 831
Hypocrite 222, 304, 311, 467-474, 730, 813
Hypostasis 67, 442, 444, 507, 650
Hypostatized 290
Tam 31, 68, 79 f., 119, 278-283, 482, 494, 715,
741
I-Thou 71, 75, 287
Iamblichus 214, 556
Ichabod 45
Idaean Dactyls 553
Idea 72, 99, 103, 169, 185, 192, 207, 284, 314,
392 f., 434, 719
Ideal 92, 99, 102f., 130, 141, 234, 325, 337,
618, 820
Idealization 250, 824 |
Identification 282, 302, 314, 343, 796, 825, 920
Identification formula 279
Identify 77, 123, 312, 318, 411, 618
Identity 80, 82, 282, 308, 632, 669, 835, 923
Ideology 111, 373
312
Idle 265
Idol 92, 96f., 135, 158, 175, 178, 235, 268 f.,
273, 284-293, 309, 325, 402, 432, 458, 470,
555, 650, 677, 722, 793, 859, 877, 893
Idolater 284-286, 660
Idolatry 96, 138, 284-286, 436, 587, 678, 682,
699, 720, 791, 794
Ignatius of Antioch 316, 550
Ignoble 50
Ignorance 166, 230, 261, 390-409, 430, 458,
882, 912 f., 916
Ignorant 406-408, 661, 801
Ignore 29, 683, 767
lium 233
Ill 259
Ill-disposed 259
Ill-fortune 148
Ill-treat 202
Ill-treated 420
Illegal 451
Illegitimate 141, 311, 372
Illicit union 586f.
Illness 206, 221, 663, 924
Illuminate 289, 394
Illumination 490-496
Illumine 183, 412, 484 f., 490-496
Illusion 44, 458
Illustration 434, 501
Illustrious 291
Illustrative stories 743-760
Image 57, 65, 85, 98, 158, 161, 196, 226, 233,
242, 247, 253, 259, 277 f., 284-293, 318f.,
393, 470, 500-508, 571, 650, 672, 693, 743,
746, 834, 871, 876, 926
Image of the beast 288
Image of God 51, 79, 161, 284, 287-289, 502,
505, 565, 569
Imagery 38, 104, 231, 385
Imagine 44
Imhotep 166
Imitate 160, 291, 350, 510, 552, 782
Immanent 376
Immaterial 192
Immature 428, 675
Imminence 53, 438, 732, 894, 921
Imminent 55, 315, 382 f., 891, 900, 910, 915,
922, 925, 930
Immoral 224, 438, 782
Immorality 263, 402, 422, 669, 676-678, 792
Es 40, 77, 188, 232, 271, 274, 476, 565,
Immortality 47, 113, 125, 201, 207, 239, 241,
268, 477, 480, 539, 661, 761, 763, 925
Immune 309, 573
Impaired 415
Impart 645
Impartial 438, 497
Impatient 238
Impede 414
Impediment 155, 220
Impending 382, 384
Impenitence 155, 713
Impenitent 183, 352, 584, 834
Imperfect 62, 304, 473, 717
Imperial 93, 518, 574
GENERAL INDEX
Imperial cult 108f., 111, 234
Imperishable 56, 218, 300, 349, 597, 657
Imperium 373
Impervious 154
Impiety 91 f.
Implement 96
Implication 333
Implicit 387
Implore 860
Imply 121
Importance 130, 165, 325, 327, 333, 378, 428
Important 146, 275, 425
Importunity 730, 881
Impossible 243, 606, 718
Imposter 457-461, 558
Impotence 285, 449, 601-616
Impress 288 f.
Impression 44f., 284, 390
Imprint 284-293
Imprison 136, 207
Imprisonment 30, 206, 368
Improve 326, 823
Impure 225
Impurity 415, 579, 669
In line with 451-453
Inability 100, 156
Inactivity 240
Inadequacy 821
Inalienable 298
Inappropriate 431, 433
Inattentive 172
Inauguration 262, 384, 673
Incantation 168, 552
Incapable 405, 446
Incarnation 86, 111, 343, 373, 378, 500, 504,
535 f., 590, 661, 828, 835, 907, 927 f.
Incense 28, 96, 226, 293-295, 713, 723, 728,
831
Incest 33, 142
Inclination 116, 710
Include 313, 400
Inclusion 316
Incognito 268
Income 898
Incomparability of God 501 f.
Incomparable 245
Incompatible 82, 309, 439
Incomplete 100, 304
Incomprehensible 100, 105 f.
Inconsistent 349, 451
Inconstant 457
Incorruptible 242
Incorruption 924
Increase 128-131, 317, 445
Incredible 263
Inculpate 370
Incur 405
Indebted 666-668
Indefinite 697
Indent 288
Independence 84, 202
Independent 195, 265, 325, 336, 441, 650
Indestructible 96, 325
Indicate 648
Indifference 435, 438, 481, 699
985
GENERAL INDEX
Indirect 150
Indissolubility 349, 583, 592
Indistinct image 743-756
Individual 71 f., 79, 99, 115, 117f., 121 f.,
133 f., 145, 158 f., 220, 222, 241 f., 249, 259,
273, 288, 298, 301, 303 f., 310-313, 320, 329,
353-355, 376, 385, 388, 410, 412, 422, 445,
476, 565, 611, 800, 864, 889
Individualistic 253
Indolence 772
Induce 266
Indulge 116, 419
Indulgence 270f., 462
Indulgent 256, 817
Indwelling 243
Inescapable 138
Inevitable 128, 138, 155, 399
Inexcusable 137
Inexhaustible 165
Inexperience 391, 468, 674
Infamous 291
Infant 294
Infection 461 f.
Inferior 412, 513
Inferiority 447
Infirmity 164 f.
Inflict pain 419-421
Influence 49, 66f., 126, 130, 136, 159, 206,
221, 259, 307, 309, 319, 333, 338, 349, 366,
372, 393, 403, 406, 462, 582, 866
Influential 915
Information 32, 234, 341, 858
Informed 406
Ingathering 359
Ingratiate 254, 837
Ingratitude 400
Ingredient 294
Inhabit 247-251
Inhabitant 324, 326-328, 367, 802
Inharmonious 393
Inherit 258, 295-304, 388, 608
Inheritance 40, 135, 193, 230, 247, 258, 295-
304, 311, 339, 380, 438, 495, 671, 839
Inheritor 295-303
Inhibit 628
Inhuman 542
Iniquity 138, 261, 742
Initiate 60, 118
Initiated 233
Initiative 119, 317, 334, 374, 582, 792
Initiator 78
Injury 166f.
Injustice 93, 258, 363, 365, 458, 822, 841, 864
Inlay 349
Inner 283
Inner life 181 f.
Inner man 78, 244
Innermost being 180
Innocence 149, 318, 429, 583
Innocent 137, 139, 367, 417
Innumerable 683
Inscribe 573
eon 139, 308 f., 331, 333 f., 339, 378 f.,
3
Inscrutability 197, 363
986
Insect 268
Insecurity 138
Insensible 575
Insensitive 153 f.
Inseparable 386
Insight 220, 316, 353, 391-393, 400, 444, 457,
517, 616
Insignificant 101, 260, 354, 605, 899
Insincerity 270
Insinuation 263
Insolence 260
Inspect 393
Inspiration 233, 342
Inspire 372, 445, 819
Install 149, 200
Installation 151
Instalment 39 f.
Instantaneous 168
Instinct 180, 182, 660 f.
Institution 101, 125, 231, 335, 373 f., 579 f.,
657, 922
Institutionalize 123
Instruct 112, 298
Instruction 32, 72, 141, 219, 235, 307f.,
310 f., 315, 328, 332, 440, 696, 719, 873
Instrument 97, 195, 302, 335, 364, 434, 436,
486, 836, 863
Insult 49, 140, 257
Insupportable 266
Insurrection 320
Intact 60
Integration 336
Integrity 61, 237
Intellect 171, 567, 617
Intellectual 59, 93, 166, 181 f., 265, 391, 397 f.,
400, 405, 407, 478
Intelligence 616-620
Intelligent 256, 392, 616-620
Intelligible 884
Intend 342
Intense 244, 312, 356
Intensification 876
Intensity 197
Intention 39, 150, 181, 281, 306, 315, 326,
443, 867
Intercede 307, 861, 874, 882-885
Intercession 117, 152, 199, 294, 424, 637f.,
857, 861, 863, 868, 874 f., 882-884
Intercessor 147, 313, 874, 884
Interchangeable 84
Intercourse 577, 586 f.
Interdependence 329
Interest 254, 395, 497, 830, 837, 861
Interesting 670
Interfere 317
Interim judgment 363
Intermediary 442
Intermediate state 761
Internal 102
Interpose 650
Interpret 125, 305, 339 f., 362-367, 468, 555
621
Interpretation 83,121, 294, 312, 314, 329, 332
342, 351, 383, 386, 388, 391, 442 f., 549, 616
811, 839, 903
Interpreter 401
Interrogate 362, 365, 451
Intertestamental period 308
Interval 429
Intervene 111, 200, 510
Intervention 48, 117, 166, 184, 201 f.
Intestines 599
‘Introduce 408, 437
Introspection 407
Introspective 355
Intuition 393
Invention 111
Invest 80, 151
Investigate 362-367, 392
Inviolability 325, 443, 592
Invisible 77-79, 86, 163, 190, 243, 288, 399,
613 f.
Invitation 262, 307, 520
Invite 32, 270, 386, 812, 825
Invocation 76, 168, 512, 530 f., 556, 862
Involvement 351, 358, 477 f., 816
Inward parts 599 f.
Ionic philosophy 657
Iranian 645 f., 836
Irenaeus 506, 645, 677
Iron 27, 95-98, 188
Iron furnace 98
Irony 170, 263, 358, 380, 398 f., 402 f., 430-
436, 620, 714, 828, 834, 836
Irrational 659
Irregular 138, 459
Irregularity 273
Irrelevant 402
Irreligious 94, 782
Irreproachable 137, 139
Irresponsibility 272
Irreverence 430, 436
Irrevocable 77, 307, 681
Irruption 382
Isaac 73, 316-319, 431, 587, 627, 649, 651,
691, 725, 746, 865
Isaiah 306, 374, 420, 432, 613, 649, 740, 754
Iscariot 321
Ishmael, Rabbi 591
Ishtar 201, 553
Isis 67, 214, 289 f., 521, 539, 554
Island 233, 353
Isles of the Blessed 761
Isolated 195, 295
Israel 38, 45, 53, 69-73, 77, 80f., 122, 125,
127, 130, 134, 154-156, 158, 218, 222f.,
239-242, 245, 247, 252, 258, 265, 284 f., 287,
297 f., 300-302, 304-323, 325 f., 328 f., 331,
335 f., 339, 342 f., 350, 353, 358, 364, 367 f.,
373-375, 377-379, 382, 385, 396, 410, 412 f.,
415, 425 f., 431 f., 441 f., 445, 453, 458, 485,
490, 495, 521, 534, 541, 545, 558, 573, 576 f.,
580, 583-585, 597, 602, 607 f., 610, 612, 615,
627, 629, 636, 641 f., 644, 649 f., 652, 660,
664, 670, 677, 679 f., 688, 690 f., 695 f., 698,
700, 712, 730, 754, 772, 777, 779, 782, 786,
790-794, 796-800, 802, 805, 810, 812, 822,
825, 835, 838, 840, 844, 848, 850, 859, 862 f.,
oS f., 872, 880, 882, 888, 890, 893, 916-918,
21
GENERAL INDEX
Israel, Modern 308
Israelite 53, 304-316, 324, 326,.353, 424, 428,
441, 462, 592, 626, 819, 822, 835
Issachar 317
Issue 62, 846
Italian Cohort
Ithaca 372
Ivory 349
Jabbok 317
Jacob 73, 116, 140, 185, 247, 304-323, 329,
337, 375, 416, 426, 431, 466 f., 558, 578, 649,
651, 791, 796, 860, 865, 899
Jairus 418, 433, 623, 630
Jambres 219, 557 f., 642
James 148, 316-320, 422 f., 435, 449 f., 652,
738, 771, 775, 816, 825, 868
Jamnia 313
Jannes 219, 557 f., 642
Jason 804
Javan 124
Jaw 30
Jealousy 587, 618, 818
Jebus 324
Jebusite 324, 375, 636
Jehoiachin 69
Jehoshaphat 754
Jehovah 69
Jehovah-shalom 777
Jehovah’s Witnesses 81
Jeopardize 415
Jeopardy 360
Jeremiah 183, 226, 239 f., 252, 306, 374, 479,
541, 583, 612, 754
Jericho 225, 754
Jeroboam I 374
Jerome 219, 804
Jerusalem 33, 37f., 185 f., 190, 194, 208, 225,
227, 229, 234, 245, 271, 296, 305, 308, 311,
321, 324-330, 331, 335, 349, 373, 375 f., 379,
381, 400, 418, 450f., 452, 467f., 489, 528,
592 f., 597, 612, 623 f., 649 f., 664, 679, 681,
688, 693, 700f., 706, 713, 740, 754f., 761,
763, 778, 785, 793, 802-804, 809, 815, 818,
826f., 834, 844, 846f., 849, 852, 864-866,
878, 888, 895, 902, 904, 909 f., 914-918, 921,
927, 930
Jerusalem above 329, 356, 803
Jerusalem Council 321, 795, 827
Jerusalem, Heavenly 186, 188, 191, 194, 207,
326, 329, 487 f., 585
Jerusalem, New 30, 199, 231, 329, 423, 473 f.,
482, 495, 615, 652, 671, 674, 692, 696, 700 f.,
763, 795, 803 f., 931
Jesus 36, 69, 73, 79, 109 f., 113, 174, 194, 223,
230, 241, 253, 299-301, 314, 321, 330-348,
373 f., 379, 383, 398, 400, 404f., 459, 495,
519, 653-656, 691, 695, 702, 708-710, 713,
716, 721-725, 728 f., 738f., 775, 785, 794,
799-801, 812, 818f., 824f., 831-846, 85],
855-861, 867-882, 893, 895 f., 898-922, 928—
930,
Jesus and Moses 640-642, 893
Jesus’ equality with God 499 f.
Jesus ben Sirach 331, 622
596
987
GENERAL INDEX
Jesus-groups 308, 311
Jethro 636f.
Jew 83, 113, 124, 126f., 129, 156, 159, 163,
214, 218, 221, 261, 282, 303, 304-323, 328,
332, 349, 353, 356, 369, 372, 378, 381, 400,
405, 413, 444, 446, 448 f., 460, 467, 474, 499,
652, 655, 660f., 682, 695, 707, 712, 721 f.,
727, 729, 736, 740, 786, 789, 793 f., 799-801,
804, 816, 818, 828, 834, 847, 849f., 877f.,
917, 930
Jewel 218
Jewellery 96
Jewish 275, 302, 304-316, 333, 826f., 849 f.,
888, 927
Jewish Christians 126, 314—316, 333, 437, 499
Jewish missionary activity 792
Jezebel 555, 582, 677 f., 724
Joab 116
Joanan 320
Job 144, 432, 771, 773, 775, 841, 860
Joda 320
Joel 690, 785
Johanan, Rabbi 784
John 114, 148, 302, 403 f., 480, 494, 546, 557,
567, 625, 652, 736, 775, 786, 907, 927
John the Baptist 104, 110, 113, 130, 136, 159,
176, 229, 245, 262, 272, 275, 338, 353, 358 f.,
366, 368, 379, 383, 399, 410, 427, 429, 443,
467, 487, 494, 550, 580, 585, 592, 624, 669,
676, 708, 786, 799, 801, 902
John Hyranus I 810, 815, 849
John Hyranus II 850
Join 300, 348-350, 353, 356, 395, 579
Joke 430
Jonah 350-352, 381, 629f., 679 f., 687, 831,
888
Jonathan 69, 116, 540, 849
Jonathan (Alexander Janneus) 659, 849 f.
Joppa 596
Jordan 639
Joseph 116, 306, 317-320, 331, 333, 416, 431 f.
558, 636 f.
Joseph of Arimathea 216, 387
Joseph Barsabbas 299
Josephus, Flavius 125, 182, 222, 234f., 259,
310, 320, 324, 331, 373, 377, 461, 512, 557,
565, 570, 578f., S591 f., 607f., 651, 659 f.,
679, 688, 707, 779, 792, 810 f., 879, 899
Joshua 69, 151, 330-332, 466, 628, 638, 712,
878
Joshua’s long day 628
Josiah 306, 325, 466, 521, 555, 778, 797
Journey 191, 266, 317 f., 327, 679
Joy 103, 107, 115, 122, 130, 149 180f., 218,
247, 268, 276, 352-361, 386, 388, 408, 416,
419-421, 423 f., 429-431, 433, 435f., 450,
462, 482, 519, 521, 524, 585, 590, 711 f.,
780 f., 783, 809, 817, 833, 862, 873 f., 887,
894, 901
Joyful 239, 244, 272, 735
Joyous 240
Jubilation 353, 540
Jubilees, Book of 528
Judah 247, 304-323, 325f., 335, 374, 577,
592, 636, 696, 815, 823, 848, 899, 916
988
Judaism 125, 131, 174, 207, 281, 283, 307-
316, 324, 336f., 340, 377, 383, 385, 396-
398, 437, 440-442, 450, 468, 479, 486, 499,
516, 556, 562, 565, 578, 591, 599, 603, 612-
614, 640f., 660, 663, 667, 672, 676, 678,
689 f., 715, 720, 761, 773, 784f., 786, 792,
794, 798, 803, 808, 810-814, 818, 823, 830,
833, 867 f., 880 f., 892, 903, 919 f., 928, 930
Judaism, Talmudic 332
Judaizers 570, 741, 828
Judaizing 133
Judas 316-321
Judas Barsabbas 321
Judas, brother of Jesus
Judas of Damascus 320
Judas the Galilean 320
Judas Iscariot 299, 321, 339, 368, 437, 526-
528, 549, 851, 854
Judas Maccabaeus
Judas, son of James
Jude: 320, 459, 897
Judea 305, 316, 320, 826, 921
Judge 71, 119 f., 140, 143, 148, 194, 204, 209,
216, 230, 238, 253, 257, 259 f., 298, 314, 327,
358, 361-371, 372, 381, 383, 385, 390-392,
411, 440, 450, 456, 468, 490, 503, 510, 518,
574, 604 f., 607, 609 f., 612, 614, 616-620, 622,
721, 727, 771, 818, 833, 859, 865 f., 877, 894,
899, 929
Judgment (— Last Judgment) 28, 31-33, 37-
39, 47, 53, 56, 58, 70, 72, 75, 98, 101-103, 111,
117 f., 136, 141, 143, 146-148, 154-156, 169,
174, 178, 189, 191, 193, 198, 202 f., 205, 208,
210, 214-218, 228, 230, 237, 239 f., 243, 245,
249, 252, 257, 260, 262, 265, 267, 271, 275 f.,
283, 285 f., 294, 296, 301, 306f., 313, 326,
328, 335, 339, 351 f., 354, 361-371, 381, 391 f.,
395 f., 398 f., 401, 407, 413, 417 f., 422, 440,
446, 449 f., 457, 468, 471, 482f., 485, 526,
540, 544, 570, 583-585, 591, 595-597, 602,
609 f., 614 f., 618, 620, 625, 630, 633, 638,
642 f., 654, 665, 679-681, 692, 698-702, 706,
709 f., 714, 717, 720, 724, 735f., 740f.,
762-764, 766, 777, 779, 791-793, 795, 797,
809, 811, 813, 815, 822, 834, 836, 841, 843 f.,
854, 866, 875, 887-894, 898, 909, 915-918,
920, 928-931
Judgment seat 361, 369-371, 875, 925 f.
Judicial 137, 362, 365, 439
Judicious 169, 616
Juggler 552-562
Juno 85
Jupiter 85, 308, 558
Juridical 407
Jurisdiction 608
Jurist 438-451
Juror 674
Just 72, 78, 237, 354, 363, 365, 372, 417, 447,
497, 499, 566
Justice 93, 119, 139, 141, 201, 226, 233, 260,
363, 368, 396, 443, 484, 486, 510, 612, 614,
658, 665, 694, 737 f.
Justification 42, 72, 78, 95, 118-120, 122f.,
129, 203, 214, 242, 359, 387, 444, 450 f., 504,
645, 723, 844, 882, 884
320
810, 849
320
Justify 73, 75, 118, 120, 122, 282, 370, 388,
408, 445, 447
Justin Martyr 316, 556, 832
Justus 299, 331
Kaddish 229
Kadesh 635
Karaites 126
Keep 132-137, 177 f., 191, 266, 271, 282, 297,
300, 327, 333, 354 f., 440, 444, 653, 838
Keep alive 476-484
Keep faith 798
Keep peace 776-783
Keep safe 838
Kenoticism 500
Keret, Legend of King 553
Kerygma 339, 341, 343, 380, 387 f., 430, 633,
906
Key 207, 223, 726-734
Keys of the kingdom of heaven 731-733
Kick 155
Kid 521
Kidney 181
Kidron 236, 713
Kill 202, 229, 234, 312, 327 f., 370, 446, 624,
871
Kiln 574
Kind 35, 75, 98-107, 116, 256-259, 284, 500-
508, 550, 656-661
Kindness 79, 105 f., 115, 158, 237 f., 270, 594,
770, 834
King 49, 55, 57, 70f., 74, 77, 96, 109, 167,
175, 190, 218, 234, 257 f., 294, 296, 306-308,
319 f., 325-327, 335-338, 341 f., 358, 363 f.,
372-390, 411-413, 432, 434, 441, 449, 458,
502, 510, 518, 521, 585, 590, 607, 612 f., 615,
641, 644, 649, 693 f., 701, 703, 711, 721, 781,
788, 797, 877, 898, 905, 931
King of Israel 375, 378, 380
King of Jacob 375
King of the Jews 315, 378-380, 449
King of kings 378, 514
King Solomon’s mines 97
Kingdom 37f., 56, 62, 70, 74, 76, 85, 95, 98,
104, 112, 129, 150, 158, 193, 196, 227, 229,
241, 258, 271, 306, 372-390, 469, 486, 510,
531 f., 585, 604, 607-609, 613, 641, 653, 661,
701, 703, 709, 717, 749, 758, 779, 795, 832,
842, 868, 881, 894, 904, 924, 929, 931
Kingdom of Christ 388
Kingdom of the Father 381
Kingdom of glory 202
Kingdom of God 31, 37, 54, 57, 74, 98, 110,
113, 118, 147, 151, 168, 178, 241, 250, 267 f.,
270, 272, 275, 277, 295, 300-303, 340, 377,
379, 381 f., 387-389, 401, 426, 429, 443, 462,
502, 535, 543, 548 f., 580, 583, 604, 619, 640,
653, 695, 727, 732-734, 743-760, 781, 791,
809, 813, 819, 824, 840, 843, 846, 857, 871,
888, 899, 902, 904, 906, 911, 920 f.
Kingdom of heaven 54, 192f., 216, 222f.,
300, 376 f., 381, 386, 426 f., 502, 714 f., 728,
730 f., 743-760, 824, 832-834
Kingdom of Judah 319f.
Kingdom of priests 380
GENERAL INDEX
Kingly 242, 335-337, 372-389
Kings of the east 378
Kingship 139, 234, 339, 372-389, 432, 644
Kingu 200
Kinsman 226
Kiss 530, 538, 547-550, 812, 859, 876
Knee 196, 414, 856, 859-861, 925
Kneel 855-886
Knock 220, 705, 855, 881 f.
Know 240, 262, 276, 280, 289, 390-409, 413
445, 488 f., 543
Know the name 648
Knowability 397
Knower of hearts 180-184
Knowing ones 397
Knowledge 60, 71 f., 75, 78, 103, 118, 122,
129, 158, 181-183, 188, 198, 202, 216-218,
220 f., 223, 227, 229, 243 f., 252 f., 267, 269,
271, 274, 287, 298, 304, 357, 390-409, 446,
448, 453, 456, 460 f., 469, 480, 490 f., 493 f.,
503, 538 f., 545, 567, 597, 620, 626, 645 f.,
648, 655, 661, 720-722, 730, 757, 830, 834 f.,
865, 879, 922
Known 338, 746f.
Korah 638
Kronos 232
Laban 140, 317, 521, 578
Labour 262, 269, 317, 475, 839, 890
Labourer 386, 711, 861
Lack 183, 217, 221, 264 f., 269, 274, 286, 391,
395 f., 401, 406-408, 422, 434, 456, 459, 499
Ladanum 294
Ladder 185, 317, 319
Lady 510-520
Lair 586
Lake of fire 304, 701
Lamb 58, 80, 147, 194, 218, 231, 280, 329,
410-414, 458, 461, 463, 473, 482, 495, 521f.,
527-529, 532, 534, 543, 569, 581, 585, 615,
625, 654, 665, 674, 676, 691, 700, 727 f., 763,
799, 801, 844
Lame 153, 167, 170f., 358, 414 f., 597, 606,
625, 630, 633
Lamech 681, 770
Lament 361, 416-424, 433, 436, 598, 862, 890
Lamentation 33, 167, 416-424, 806, 823, 860
Lamp 212, 484-496, 556, 710 f.
Lamp-bearer 578
Lampstand 484 f., 486 f., 691, 712
Land 187, 248, 257, 265, 275, 295-304, 305,
307, 309, 311, 315-317, 357, 362 f., 367, 374,
448, 511, 540, 691, 698, 788, 822
Landed property 845-847
Landowner 297, 788, 843
Landscape 92, 303
Language 124, 157, 308 f., 648, 740, 784, 786,
791, 907, 925, 927
Languish 422
Laodicea 597, 727, 826, 844, 881
Laodiceans, Epistle to 219
Large 177, 194, 424-429, 443, 709
Large-heartedness 484—486
Last 52-66
989
GENERAL INDEX
Last Adam 57, 481, 504, 566
Last day 53, 118, 298, 364, 378, 861, 887, 894,
929
Last days 75, 219, 302, 354, 377, 379, 397,
413, 443, 604, 607, 609, 642, 649, 654, 709,
727, 740, 772, 785, 787, 875
Last hour 384
Last judgment 191, 205, 208, 245, 262, 365,
481, 488, 499, 682, 700 f., 867, 928 f.
Last Supper (— Lord’s Supper)
Last things 245, 691
Last times 61
Last will and testament
Lasting 96, 393
Latin 126
Latter days 337
Laugh 357, 361, 416 f., 422, 424, 429-436
Laughter 429-436
Law 59, 61-64, 73, 77, 86, 91 f., 94, 99-101,
103, JIN f., 114, 116-120, 122f., 125-127,
131-138, 141 f., 144, 148, 174, 176 f., 180 f.,
186, 188, 211, 216, 222, 228, 235, 237, 241 f.,
247, 254-256, 259, 261 f., 266, 281-283, 288,
296, 298, 301, 307, 312, 320, 327, 329, 349,
355, 357, 365, 368, 385, 398 f., 406, 436-456,
460, 468 f., 475, 488, 492, 498 f., 503 f., 510 f.,
513, 516, 519, 540-544, 546, 550, 552, 555,
559, 566, 576-579, 583, 590, 595 f., 605, 607,
610, 617, 621, 631, 637, 639-642, 645, 656—
660, 662-668, 673, 678, 686, 693 f., 708 f.,
714-716, 719, 727, 737, 741f., 748, 767
776 f., 784, 786, 793-795, 797, 799, 801, 810-
813, 816, 822, 827 f., 830, 833, 837, 842, 889,
922
Law, Apodeictic 441
Law, Casuistic 441
Law, Summary of 177
Law and Prophets 174, 177, 444
Law of Christ 446
Law of evidence 686
Law of God 440
Law of Holiness 226
Law of the land 439
Law of liberty 449 f.
Law of sin 282
Law of Yahweh 440
Law-breaker 29, 143, 572
317
Lawcourt 142, 362
Lawful 104, 138, 253, 281, 606-611
Lawgiver 438-451, 485, 580, 635-642, 677,
721, 871
Lawgiving 438-451, 784-786
Lawless 438-451, 468, 677, 810, 901
Lawlessness 438-451, 494, 901
Lawsuit 363
Lawyer 177, 223, 438-451, 730
Lax 801
Lay down 439
Lay down life 42, 101, 359, 413
Lay foundation 64
Layard, Austen 679
Laying on of hands
Laymen 456f.
Layer 586
990
28, 122, 146-153, 875
Lazarus 178, 267, 418, 433, 466, 548, 630, 706,
801, 825, 846, 929
Lead 70, 72, 149, 152, 222, 230, 358, 377, 408,
410, 846, 871
Lead astray 156, 281, 407, 457-461, 469, 471,
474, 707-710, 793, 808, 841
Lead back 462
Lead out 313
Leader 50, 95, 372, 379, 514, 724, 799
Leaderless 800
Leadership 114, 121, 317, 374
League 306
Leah 305 f., 317, 319, 578, 796
Learn 179, 289, 291, 313, 392, 395, 398, 422
Learned in law 438-451
Learner 291
Learning 61, 140, 659
Least 55, 427-429
Leather 465
Leave 394
Leave country 788-790
Leaven 216, 385, 428, 461-463, 657f., 714,
716, 755, 834
Leaves 382
Left hand 146-153
Left-handed 414
Leg 414f., 817
Legal 121, 132, 137, 139, 141-143, 254, 256,
296, 305, 307, 312, 335, 349, 362-364, 366 f.,
369, 372, 427, 437-451, 510, 512, 662 f., 716
Legal concept 39
Legal expert 438-451
Legalism 134, 267, 327, 730
Legalistic 106, 133, 221, 361, 671
Legend 784f.
Legislate 438-451, 738
Legislation 438—451
Legitimate 372
Legitimation 329
Leiden magical papyrus
Leisure 360
Lend 24] .
Leniency 257, 769, 817
Leo 688
Leontopolis 331
Leper 358, 410, 414, 463-466, 599, 630 f.
Leprosy 171, 349, 396, 463-466, 633
Leprous 463-466
Lepton 849 f., 852
Letter 113f., 291, 356, 358, 446, 448, 452,
530, 641, 671, 675
Level 259, 563
Levi 237, 317, 320, 447, 466 f., 592, 639, 693 f.
Leviathan 485
Levirite marriage 564, 576, 577 f., 588, 691
Levite 227, 237, 297, 300, 304, 311, 321,
466 f., 592, 636, 638, 649, 693 f., 730, 799,
813, 823
Levitical 64, 290, 320, 448, 466 f., 694
Liability 362
Liable 142, 156, 667, 775
Liar 470-474, 503
Libation 854f.
Liberal 827
Liberate 64, 131
683
Liberation 110
Liberator 560
Libertinism 394, 447, 584, 611, 677
Liberty 161 f., 211, 444, 884
Libophoenicia 126
Lice 637
Licence 678
Licentiousness 256, 436, 587, 868, 892
Lie 72, 77, 312, 393, 467-474, 555, 567, 736,
813, 831, 847
Lie down 586
Lie fallow 822
Lie in wait 132 f., 460
Life 31, 42, 54, 58, 60f., 77, 80, 83, 87, 95,
99 f., 102-104, 106, 108, 111, 113, 116-124,
129, 132, 136, 156-159, 162, 166, 178, 180-
182, 185 f., 201, 203, 205 f., 209, 211, 217f.,
221, 225, 228, 239, 242, 244, 258f., 260,
264 f., 267, 269-271, 274 f., 278-280, 282,
295, 310, 316, 332, 339, 343, 350 f., 353, 357,
361, 366, 368, 370, 387 f., 394 f., 400 f., 404,
406 f., 416, 419-421, 426, 428, 430, 433, 436-
439, 441 f., 446 f., 449, 452 f., 458, 460, 472,
474-484, 485 f., 488, 490-492, 494, 510, 512,
517, 523, 535, 538, 567-569, 571 f., 583, 598,
605 f., 617, 625, 631, 636, 642, 657, 665 f.,
671 f., 675 f., 691, 705, 714-716, 718 f., 736,
764, 778, 780, 787, 789, 794, 807, 811, 815-
819, 825, 828, 830, 833 f., 837f., 840, 843,
eset 861, 864, 892, 903, 911, 918 f., 926,
28 f.
Life-giving 186, 274, 520, 929
Life-span 478, 690
Lifetime 382, 887, 921
Lift up 187, 204, 225, 259, 642, 764, 873
Lift up the countenance 621
Light 46, 70f., 77, 80, 105, 119, 130, 183, 185,
189, 193, 200, 213 f., 216, 232, 250, 278-281,
290, 302, 307, 313, 353, 380, 408, 428, 484—
496, 517, 565, 609, 645, 672, 691, 706, 713,
719, 742, 761, 795, 830, 834, 839, 889, 928
Light up 490-496
Light-bearers 493
Lighthearted 431, 435
Lightness 461
Lightning 484
et 80, 284, 286, 291, 307-496-508, 516, 744,
81
Like-minded 500-508
Likeness 242, 284, 286-288, 496-508
Liking 116
Lilies of the field 386
Limb 414 f.
Limit 106, 244, 309, 360, 689, 692, 873
Limited period 765-767
Limitless 694
Limp 414f.
Line 337, 436, 451
Lineage 656
Linear history 891
Linger 773
Lintel 410
Lion 215, 320, 411, 421, 628
Lion of Judah 340
Lip-service 93
GENERAL INDEX
Lipit-Ishtar Code 582
Lips 28, 30, 864
Liquid 854
Listen 155, 172-180, 316, 413, 435, 444, 867
Listener 175, 748
Literal 266, 415, 685, 917, 927
Literalism 905
Ligitant 369
Litigate 363
Litigation 317
Little 157, 427-429
Little Apocalypse 65
Little ones 428, 709
Little while 429
Liturgical 253, 512, 870, 874
Liturgy 45, 200 f., 353, 530-536
Live 95, 120, 123, 267, 269, 271, 297, 335, 393,
438, 445, 474-484, 801-804, 815-819
Live asa Jew 310
Live in 247-251
Live in peace 776-783
Livelihood 297, 475, 678
Livestock 410, 412, 693
Living 74, 204, 233, 267, 275, 282, 285, 319,
365, 924
Living creature 476-484
Living One
Living stone 83, 230, 249, 253
Living water 267
Load 281
Loaf 534
Loan 254, 666, 856, 858
Loan-word 125, 333
Locality 303, 376
Lock 207
Locust 628, 637, 690, 831
Loft 189
Logia 757
Logic 284
Logical 392f.
Logos 125, 140,185,288, 355, 404, 535 f., 590
Loneliness 307, 360, 420, 478
Long 239
Longing 103, 108, 238, 244, 247, 265, 267,
270, 325, 394, 420, 423, 539, 789, 900
Longsuffering 764, 766, 768-772
Look at 393
Look for 244-246
Look into 393
Look up 194
Loose (— Binding and loosing) 402, 732 f.
Lord 58, 68, 70-72, 74, 77, 80, 84, 147, 186f.,
191, 193 f., 203 f., 213 f., 218, 226, 238, 242,
244, 287, 330, 332, 343, 350, 363, 366, 373,
383, 386, 388, 399, 403, 411-413, 460, 491,
508-520, 522, 528, 535, 548, 562, 580, 582,
590, 595, 619, 649, 652, 654, 674, 677, 722,
725, 800, 818, 859, 863, 867, 869, 877, 891,
895 f., 915, 922
Lord of hosts 69, 326, 375
Lord of lords 514
Lord it over 510-520
Lord’s Day 518
Lord’s Prayer 229, 267, 561, 653, 668, 832,
868-873
991
GENERAL INDEX
Lord’s Supper 221, 250, 269, 273-277, 286,
314, 354, 368, 391, 516, 518, 520-538, 543,
547, 581, 671, 732, 754, 854, 882, 885, 894—
897, 920
Lordship 81, 163, 203, 374 f., 399, 425, 510-
520, 619, 649, 722, 754
Lose 314, 385, 838
Lose life 203, 918, 920
Loss 31, 318, 420, 422 f., 775
Lost 287 f., 314, 356, 358, 366, 386, 394, 412 f.,
439, 446, 459-461, 857
Lot 72, 247, 294, 295-304, 361, 787, 835
Loud 201, 426
Love 43, 51, 62f., 64, 70 f., 76, 78 f., 83, 86,
97, 101, 103-106, 117, 119, 121, 129, 131 f.,
134, 141, 144, 147, 149, 162f., 176f., 180,
183, 185, 198, 214, 217, 221, 227, 230, 242 f.,
253, 256, 258, 264, 267, 269, 286, 301, 304,
307, 310, 318, 328, 358f., 364, 366, 386,
391 f., 395, 400, 402-405, 413, 418, 422,
426 f., 444-446, 449, 469 f., 473, 475, 478,
482, 493 f., 499, 503, 538-551, 563, 585, 597,
599 f., 604 f., 625, 632, 653, 658 f., 665, 668,
673, 681, 698, 706, 709, 720 f., 733, 736, 745,
771, 774-776, 779 f., 791, 798, 807, 812f.,
815, 817, 824, 826 f., 838, 847, 855, 857, 868,
880, 905, 925, 929
Love feast 547
Love for mankind 547-550
Love of money 550, 845
Loveless 143, 864, 868
Loving kindness 237, 261
Low 259, 263, 822
Lower 209 f., 719
Lower regions 205-210
Lowest 55, 57
Lowliness 259-264, 334, 379
Lowly 200, 203, 259-264, 821
Loyal 125, 149, 237, 319
Loyalty 71, 117, 132, 134, 146, 218, 239, 397,
451, 487, 595, 785
Lucian of Samosata 556
Lucius of Cyrene 740
Lucky 146
Ludicrous 285
Luke 168
Lukewarm 727, 844, 881
Luminary 490-496
Lump 462
Lunatic 165
Lure 707
Lust 368, 478, 580, 779
Luxury 486
Luz 317
LXX (— Septuagint)
Lydia 550, 847
Lying 469, 586
Lying spirit 458
Lynch 450
Lysimachus 849
Lystra 606
Macarius of ‘Aelia’ 506
Maccabean rebellion 290, 307
Maccabees 125, 237, 337, 810
992
Mace-head 97
Macedonia 550, 809, 818, 826
Macedonian 802, 804
Machpelah 318, 847
Madness 27, 431
Magi 294, 552-562, 728, 831
Magic 74, 151, 168, 170, 214, 286 f., 296, 393,
479, 520, 552-562, 601 f., 605, 621, 629 f.,
648, 650, 652, 654, 656, 662, 728 f., 831, 847
Magic arts 557 |
Magic potion 552-562
Magical ceremony 556
Magician 552-562, 639, 642
Magistrate 234
Magnificat 34, 261
Magnificent 425
Magnify 44, 202, 360, 424-427
Magus 552-562
Maid 317
Maim 153, 414f.
Main meal 520-538
Main point 157
Maintain 326f.
Maintenance 135, 271, 737
Majestic 46, 92
es 44, 46, 71, 80, 146, 217, 338, 424-427,
Make _ 77, 252
Make alive 476-484, 865
Make crooked 370
Make example of 291
Make friends 832, 837
Make fun of 436
Make great 202, 424—427
Make holy 224-232
Make known 217, 358, 488-490
Make large 424—427
Make laws 438-451
Make like 500-508
Make low 259-264
Make merry 356
Make new 604, 670-674
Make peace 776-783
Make plain 488
Make righteous 94
Make a show 352
Make sport 436
Make void 43
Maker 655
Malachi 318
Malady 167
Malcontent 145
Male 161, 287, 410, 562, 569-571
Malefactor 148
Malevolent 552
Malice 270, 379, 463, 676
Malicious 149
Maltreat 50
Mambres 557
Mammon 73, 255, 286, 382, 829-853
Mamre 557
Man 46, 65, 94, 160-162, 180-185, 196, 266,
287, 349, 390, 483, 508, 545, 562-572, 581,
600, 646, 661-663, 715, 739, 781, 813, &19,
889
Man, First
Man of lawlessness
Manage 247-256
Management 253-256
Manager 254
Manasseh 306, 318, 374, 555, 649
Mandaeism 278, 491, 646, 830
Mandate 607
Manichaeism 491, 674
Manifest 216f., 359, 487 f.
Manifestation 447
Manipulate 556
Mankind 332, 342
Manly 562
Manna 218, 268 f., 272, 628, 637, 674, 871 f.,
928
Manner 369, 437, 550
Manner of life 95, 243, 264, 308, 475
Mantology 621
Manual work 820
Many 130,179, 525 f., 530, 532, 543, 719, 800,
46, 159, 504
447
854
Mar 287 f.
Marah 637
Maranatha 530 f., 886-935
Marcellus of Ancyra 506f.
March 451
Marcus Aurelius 657, 776
Marduk 200, 553
Mariamne 550
Mark 149, 182, 284, 291, 329, 390, 411, 431,
572-575, 626, 701, 847
Mark of the beast 574
Mark of Cain 572, 626
Market 273, 286
Marriage 32, 59, 126, 139, 141, 188, 221, 223,
230, 311, 317, 349, 400, 412, 444, 517, 541,
545, 549, 564, 570 f., 575-590, 691, 722, 923
Marriage bed 586f.
Marriage ceremony 576, 578
Marriage laws 511, 576-581, 585
Married 87
Marry 575-582, 608, 715, 738
Mars 85
Martha 418, 929
Martyr 49, 117, 133, 193, 207, 290, 365, 412,
712, 724, 767, 854
Martyrdom 117, 361, 542, 824, 854 f.
Martyrology 368
Marvel 621-626
Marvellous 621-626, 669
Mary 118 f., 261, 332 f., 353, 358, 418, 847
Mass 788
Massah 635
Master 84, 155, 180, 258, 281, 330, 435, 450,
499, 508-520, 539, 581, 595, 611, 653, 721,
737, 775, 816 f., 833, 837 f., 859, 890
Mastery 165
Material 99, 187, 200, 265 f., 284, 287, 659,
837, 840 f., 844, 846
Material things 32, 328, 356
Materialism 488
Materialistic 275
Materialization 337
Mathematics 743
GENERAL INDEX
Matter 394, 402, 452, 505
Matthew 467, 691, 715
Matthias 299, 787
Mature 62, 269, 391
Maturity 59, 64f., 103, 129, 187, 563, 721
Maxim 757
Mazaeus 848
Mazdaism 492
Mazzoth 522
Meagre 821, 826
Meal 74, 150, 228, 271-274, 276, 286, 354—
356, 520, 522, 581, 599
Meaning 67, 103, 106, 213, 281, 326, 332, 377,
384, 434, 891
Meaningless 683, 729
Means 164, 167, 845-847
Measure 122, 131, 266, 362, 366, 369, 424,
448, 683, 698, 891
Measuring-line 298
Meat 235, 268 f., 272 f., 284-286
Meat offered to idols 284-286, 721
Meddlesome 552-562
Medea _ 553
Medes 678 f.
Medians 557
Mediate 388, 402-404
Mediator 72, 80, 84, 117, 167, 178, 343, 442 f.,
448, 492, 603 f., 721, 781, 874
Medical 153, 164, 166-168, 170, 414
Medicinal 211, 710, 712
Medicine 166-168, 256, 271, 552-562
Mediterranean Sea, 319
Medium 96, 554
Mediumship 559
Meek 194, 256-264, 380
Meekness 256-264
Meet 882-885
Meeting 161, 231, 416
Meeting place 250
Melchizedek 36, 67, 178, 378, 447, 467, 505,
508, 590-593, 614, 693 f., 781
Melt 95, 452
Member 51, 83, 141, 148, 157-160, 247-251,
273, 312, 314, 350, 363, 366, 385, 414 f., 450,
499, 518, 619, 794
Membership 310 f., 377, 441
Memory 335, 410, 568
Menander 438, 648, 757
Mendacious 470-474
Menstruation 577
Mental 163, 284
Mentality 616-620
Mercenaries 325, 801
Merchandise 97 f., 236
Merchant 502
Merciful 594-598, 652
Merciless 97, 154, 594-598
Mercury 85
Mercy 68, 71f., 78, 104f., 117f., 121, 123,
146, 154, 168, 245, 257, 267, 353, 357 f., 364,
388, 407, 413, 435, 443, 449, 492, 517, 543 f.,
546, 550, 567, 593-601, 607, 694, 770, 807,
824, 826, 840, 842, 863, 865, 867, 875
Mercy-seat 294, 614
Meribah 635, 638
993
GENERAL INDEX
Merit 44, 141, 301, 813
Meritorious 873
Merneptah 305
Merriment 354, 430
Meshach 628
Mespila 678
Mess of pottage 316
Message 37, 74f., 77f., 107, 109, 112-114,
126f., 135, 171-173, 175 f., 179, 217, 233,
243, 281, 315, 332, 338, 356-359, 383 f., 387,
403 f., 435, 627, 718 f., 749, 765, 843 f., 918
Messenger 107, 109-111, 179, 185, 192, 314,
328, 403, 426, 503, 806
Messiah 30, 32, 56, 61, 75, 101, 109, 147f.,
159, 170, 176, 241, 245, 252, 257 f., 282, 294,
308, 313 f., 328, 334-343, 353, 375, 377-379,
385, 400, 411, 458, 498, 503, 515, 521, 558,
580 f., 585, 591 f., 602-604, 607, 609 f., 612-
614, 640, 701, 708, 712, 739, 762, 791 f., 794,
808, 811 f., 819, 888, 892, 898 f., 902-904,
927, 930
Messiah, Davidic 337
Messiahship 339-341, 343, 379
Messianic 31, 100, 104, 110f., 165, 241, 252,
309, 313 f., 334-343, 353, 368, 375f., 379,
389, 495, 515, 566, 581, 591 f., 599, 604, 610,
629 f., 638, 654, 672, 677, 706, 712, 717,
730 f., 761, 780
Messianic age 151, 294, 585, 591, 629, 640,
698 f., 792, 798, 859, 892
Messianic banquet 270, 276, 761, 871
Messianic community 30, 34, 207, 731-733
Messianic consciousness 340 f., 731
Messianic expectation 110, 245, 335, 337 f.,
341, 590
Messianic hope 174, 337
Messianic interpretation 31, 557
Messianic king 374, 412, 701
Messianic presence 279
Messianic pretender 313
Messianic secret 341, 379, 752 f., 916
Messianic titles 378, 380
Messianic work 165
Messianism 258, 337-339, 379, 903, 921
Metal 96f., 288
Metallurgy 98
Metaphor 27-30, 40-42, 91, 155f., 158, 166,
169 f., 180-182, 185, 211, 224, 234f., 247-
252, 254 f., 259, 264, 266, 268 f., 278 f., 285,
291, 303, 307, 313, 349, 351, 364, 370, 385,
412-415, 421, 423, 444, 451, 462, 479, 484,
486 f., 490, 493, 506, 509, 573, 583-585, 587,
598 f., 612, 705, 707f., 711, 714, 727f., 732f.,
oF 743-760, 764, 806, 810, 821, 855, 881,
27
Metaphysical 184, 242, 396
Metaphysical proof 77
Meteorological 191
Method 311, 903
Methuselah 681, 698
Micah 250
Micaiah ben Imlah 458
Mice 831
Michael 191, 591, 608, 642, 763, 779
Midian 636
994
Midianite 367, 635, 638
Midnight 136, 881
Midrash 125, 187, 755, 913
Might 70, 78, 191, 200, 510, 601-616, 650,
654, 843, 859
Mighty 49, 369, 601-616
Mighty deeds 424-427
Mighty God 86
Mighty One 70, 602
Mighty works 383
Migrate 308
Mild 105, 256-259
Military 104, 220, 788, 898
Military force 601 f.
Military service 306, 578
Milk 268 f., 452
Millenarianism 905
Millennium 389, 690, 697-703, 795, 809, 901,
931
Mind 156, 172, 174, 177, 181 f., 212 f., 260,
282, 360, 390-393, 398, 406 f., 422, 437, 476,
564f., 567, 590, 616-620, 676, 781, 832,
884 f.
Minerva 85
Mining 96f.
Minister 381
Ministry 75, 118, 148, 163, 168, 187, 193, 299,
341, 447, 517, 543, 799, 898, 902, 927, 929
Minor judges 363
Minority 254
Mint 210 f., 573, 847
Miracle 85, 91, 151, 164-171, 192, 228, 267,
272, 287, 328, 358, 379, 466, 560 f., 603 f.,
620-635, 654, 749, 858, 863, 901, 920
Miraculous 166-168, 385
Miriam 635, 638
Mirror 284, 290, 603, 756
Miserable 825
Misery 393, 595
Misfit 92
Misfortune 108, 215, 266, 285, 422, 598, 707
Mishnah 174, 583, 881
Mislead 457-461, 708
Mismated 739-742
Misrepresent 281, 655
Miss 172, 460
Miss mark 457
Mission 32, 111, 119-121, 126, 150, 169, 173,
222, 272, 275, 309, 314-316, 327, 338, 517,
645, 668, 706, 728, 732, 773, 786 f., 794, 828,
875, 888, 902, 920 f., 924
Missionary 34, 73, 77, 111, 114, 125, 130,
250, 272, 311, 315 f., 360, 493, 573, 727, 740,
781, 927
Mist 488
Mistake 406, 457, 459, 910, 915
Mistress 510-520
Misunderstanding 28, 312, 316, 434
Misuse 123, 606
Misuse authority 606-611
Mite 850
Mitigate 256
Mix 95f.
Mixed population 801
Mixed marriages 126, 250, 581
Mixer of potions 552-562
Mnemonic 685
Moabites 373, 677
Mob 800f.
Mock 429-436
Mockery 287, 378 f., 421, 429-436
Model 151, 284, 290 f., 427
Moderation 99, 103, 130, 266
Modest 260
Modesty 257
Moira 303
Moisten 188
Mold 465
Molech 375
Moloch 83, 375
Moltmann and the Parousia 908 f.
Moment 925
Monarchy 319f., 335 f., 373-389, 822, 841
Money 32, 42, 49, 96, 131, 216, 221, 226, 321,
326, 497, 583, 666 f., 822, 829-853, 854
Money changer 236
Monistic anthropology 919
Monogamy 575 f.
Monologue 867
Monotheism 70, 515, 606, 720
Monotheistic 67, 71
Montanus 507
Month 157, 689, 694, 887
Monument 149, 649
Moon 128, 192, 484, 487f., 491, 495 f., 622,
628, 690 f., 889, 916
Moon cult 67
Moral 93, 100, 105, 143 f., 150, 241, 280, 363,
372, 377, 383, 394, 471, 582, 657, 666, 781
Moral corruption 58
Moral goodness 98
Moral lapse 51
Moral perfection 77
Moralize 67
Morality 223 f., 420, 660
Morally good 102
Morals 92, 457, 575
Mordecai 291
More 130
Morning 136
Morning star 486, 490-496
Morsel 528
Mortal 83, 243, 476, 503, 659, 879
Mortality 564, 923
Mosaic legislation 123
Mosaic tradition 327
Moses 46, 151, 154, 173, 180, 186, 202, 209,
212 f., 215 f., 219, 225, 249, 281, 287, 290,
306, 331, 337, 369, 437, 440, 442, 447-451,
453, 460, 488 f., 521, 557, 559, 580, 592, 598,
625, 627, 631, 635-643, 677, 684, 686, 696,
724, 745, 762, 768, 777, 795-797, 835, 844,
847, 893
Most High 376, 865, 899
Mosul 678
Mot 554
Moth 831
Mother 188, 226, 229, 250, 312, 317, 329, 332,
358, 548, 571, 575, 737, 803
Mother Goddess 85
GENERAL INDEX
Mother-love 599
Motivate 364
Motive 43, 103, 137, 181, 244, 331, 350, 360,
437, 858
Mould 95, 285
Mount 131, 184
Mount of Olives 713
Mountain 157, 184, 187, 199, 218, 262, 297,
324 f., 353, 489, 870 f., 878
Mountain of God 185, 202, 635
Mountainous 305
Mourn 417-423, 433
Mourning 267, 357 f., 417-423, 714, 777, 887,
917
Mourning women 418
Mouth 28, 72, 80, 83, 132, 157, 216, 237, 252,
267, 451, 726 f.
Move 116, 266
Movement 457
Much _ 130, 840
Multiply 128, 130 f.
Multitude 214, 696 f., 795, 811, 842
Murder 63, 138, 489, 854
Murderer 472
Murmur 423
Muses 372
Music 92
Musician 578
Must 662-669, 808 f.
Mustard 385, 429, 462, 714, 834
Muster 683 f.
Mutual 51, 313, 317, 404
Myrrh _ 28, 293-295, 712
Mysterious 364
Mystery 64, 69, 72, 75, 176, 178, 197 f. 255,
274, 341 f., 349, 401, 726, 736, 794, 835, 922
Mystery Religions 60, 202, 233, 239, 265,
274, 276, 457, 539, 763, 862, 898
Mystery of lawlessness 447, 901
Mystic 185, 357
Mystical 201, 539, 584
Mysticism 76 f., 173, 393, 403, 479, 762
Myth 60, 125, 196, 200, 204, 310, 314, 394,
404 f., 408, 613, 633, 643-647, 761, 858, 906 f.
Myth and ritual school 644
Myth of Er 762
Mythical 280, 297, 405
Mythological 201 f., 250, 278, 404, 906
Mythology 158, 188f., 200, 394, 430, 479,
688 f.
Naaman 396, 464
Nabal 649
Nadab 638
Nag Hammadi 219, 751, 926
Nahal Mishmar 97
Nahum 432, 679
Nail 98, 348
Nain 600, 630
Naked 207, 212, 854, 926
Name 32, 68, 71, 74 f., 86, 110, 117, 120, 122,
134, 148, 157, 160, 190 f., 193, 200, 203, 217,
226, 228-231, 247, 254, 262, 281, 305-308,
317-320, 324-327, 330-335, 338, 340, 342f.,
358 f., 376, 381, 387, 425, 427, 450, 458, 512-
995
GENERAL INDEX
Name continued
514, 556, 560, 572, 574, 602, 624, 627, 648—
656, 666, 676, 695, 722, 777, 791, 800, 803,
810, 837, 858, 865, 868, 871, 928 f.
Name changes 649
Namelessness 649
Names of God (— God, Names of)
Naphtali 317
Narcotic 28
Narrative 113
Narrow 812, 888
Narrow door 29, 31
Nathan 374, 612, 614, 691
Nathanael 339
Nation 105, 128, 179, 310, 319 f., 349, 363 f.,
415, 435, 437, 786, 788-805
National 305, 309, 337, 373, 376, 795
National differences 83
Nationalistic 377, 385, 389
Nations 32, 45, 70, 74, 83, 190, 226, 237 f.,
240, 242, 308-310, 316, 359, 364, 374-378,
396, 432 f., 460 f., 492, 615, 627, 650, 654,
690, 697, 701 f., 724, 788-805, 863, 888, 890,
893
Natural 138, 182, 267, 271, 414, 419, 548,
656-661, 712, 806
Natural law 165, 236
Natural man 75, 101, 182, 184, 605, 609
Natural order 77, 162, 631
- Natural phenomena 602, 607
Natural theology 287
Nature 47, 75, 86, 105, 162, 179 f., 245, 279,
287-289, 303, 340, 356, 375, 393 f., 396, 432,
439, 441, 446, 476, 500-508, 514, 552, 564,
601 f., 617, 628 f., 633, 651, 656-662, 672,
675 f., 863
Nature miracles 630
Nature of God 68 f.,
Nazara 333
Nazarene 312, 330, 332-334, 867
Nazareth 101, 165, 330-335, 338, 341-343,
624, 728, 730, 825
Nazirite 224 f., 227 f., 440, 450, 638
Near 52-66, 73, 113, 237, 382
Nearness 30, 168, 366, 384, 388, 479, 491, 518
Nebuchadnezzar 96, 320, 431, 555
Necessary 130, 244, 310, 350, 663-666, 845
Necessity 139, 480, 505, 588, 662-669, 808,
912
Necromancy 206, 553 f.
Need 71, 100, 116, 190, 197, 201 f., 211, 230,
243, 254, 257, 263, 265-267, 272, 313, 320,
355, 412f., 600, 631, 737, 820-829, 855,
860 f., 864, 871, 874, 877
Needy 71, 194, 396, 820-829
Negation 394
Negative 312
Negev 319
Neglect 43, 92, 150, 211
Nehemiah 307, 439, 467
Neighbour 49, 63 f., 141, 143, 163, 177, 184,
203, 275, 287, 297, 418, 427, 435, 442, 449,
503, 540-545, 600, 611, 668, 739, 749, 779,
803, 813, 815, 857
Neptune 85
996
Nero 511, 684, 898
Nero rediviyus 684
Nest 586
Net 104, 714, 834
Neutral 325
New 120, 138, 156, 226, 328, 426, 641, 669-
676, 714—716, 754, 789
New age 53, 131, 169, 228, 605, 698, 701, 714,
754, 892, 920
New birth 242, 625, 929
New commandment 43, 671, 673, 779
New covenant 71, 73, 77, 83, 155, 213, 240,
276, 306, 312, 320, 328, 356, 444, 446-448,
516, 524, 533, 591-593, 595, 661, 670f.,
673 f., 694, 716, 786, 797, 854, 867, 872
New creation (— Creation, New)
New day 364
New earth 240, 245, 340, 420, 483, 670f.,
674, 692, 702, 779, 804, 836, 867
New era 108 f., 374, 383, 676, 698
New heart 155, 184, 867
New heaven 245, 340, 420, 482 f., 670 f., 674,
692, 702, 779, 836, 867
New Jerusalem (— Jerusalem, New)
New law 123, 281, 451
New life 102, 113, 217, 262, 349, 420, 453,
617-619, 671, 676, 716, 925
New man 121, 163, 237, 251, 473, 566, 670 f.,
674 f., 715
New moon 128, 226
New name 649, 652f., 671, 673 f., 754
New order 399 .
New people 83, 127, 242, 349, 573, 652, 722,
788, 800, 918
New song 380, 670 f., 674
New spirit 155
New temple 252, 326, 410, 612, 893
New to the incense 294
New world 267
New Year festival 613, 644
Newborn 270
Newly planted 674-676
Newness 670-674, 718, 781
News 107 f., 173, 175, 179
Next of kin 53
Nicea 497, 506
Nicene Creed 497
Nickname 648
Nicodemus 295, 448, 625, 812
Nicolaitans 676-678, 763
Nicolas (Nicolaus) 676-678
Night 232, 332, 368, 490f., 493, 495 f., 528,
658, 887, 922
Nike 849
Nile 636 f.
Nine 697
Nineveh 351, 365, 423, 678-681, 831
Ninevites 350, 678-681
Ninth hour 685
Noachian decrees (commandments) 309, 682
Noah 91, 300f., 309, 382, 591, 681-683, 692,
880
Nobility 788, 800
Noble 57, 98, 102, 290, 652
Noble-minded 256
Noetic 493
Nomad 305
Non-Christian 94, 127, 230, 333 f., 349
Non-cultic 233
Non-elect 156
Non-Israelite 49, 51, 53, 154, 790
Non-Jew 90, 381, 641, 660 f.
Non-reality 402
Non-Semitic 331
Nonentity 285
Norm 438-451
Normative 442
Northern kingdom 305 f., 325, 635, 916
Notch 288
Nothing 41, 128, 239
Nothingness 286, 471
Notice 267, 392, 395, 398
Nourish 372, 837
Nourishment 264, 462
Novel 670
Novice 299, 676
Now 242 f., 907, 930
Null 453
Number 37, 53, 63, 159, 207, 288, 299, 313,
352, 389, 428, 497, 653, 683-704, 725, 734,
739, 763, 795, 809, 887, 892, 931
Number of aman 684
Number of the Beast 574, 684
Numbers, Problem of large 698
Numerical value 683
Numerous 130, 683
Numinous 91
Nun 331
Nuzi 316f.
Oak 318
Oasis 266
Oath 134, 142, 149, 159, 190, 224, 226, 301,
307, 447, 472, 648, 650, 652, 797, 861-864,
867-875
Oath of innocence 583
Oath of Hippocrates 166
Obdurate 153
Obedience 30f., 42, 56, 70, 80, 91-95, 118,
122, 130, 132, 137, 156, 165, 172-180, 182 f.,
186, 199, 202-204, 228, 230, 241, 258, 267,
272, 278, 289, 301, 312, 336, 343, 361, 378,
386, 391, 395, 399, 401, 403 f., 426, 441-443,
445 f., 473, 479, 492, 500, 540 f., 566, 605,
608, 620, 636, 670, 682, 716, 724, 748, 775,
797, 810, 812, 816, 868, 892
Obedient 184, 227, 259, 262, 478, 504, 509,
706, 721, 816, 856
Obeisance 875-879
Obey 132, 134 f., 138, 158, 172-180, 259, 313,
394, 399, 439, 444, 449, 462, 514, 650, 817
Objective 357
Obligation 43, 76, 92, 134, 174, 177, 223,
236 f., 265, 271, 286, 418, 549, 606, 662-669,
842, 856, 858
Oblige 115f.,
Obliterate 287, 308
Obscure 214, 218, 316, 781
Obscurity 313
Observance 132, 135, 150, 268, 327, 442, 449
GENERAL INDEX
Observation 132, 385
Observe 132, 135, 237, 270, 354, 363, 393,
395, 440
Obsolete 231, 669, 675, 713-716
Obstacle 220, 223, 394, 705-708
Obstinacy 154
Obstinate 106, 153
Obtain 116, 298, 317, 361, 367, 838-840
Obtain justice 363
Occasion 137
Occult 557 f.
Occupation 254, 303, 331
Occupy 247, 438
Ocean 188-190, 205
Octavian 849
Odysseus 372, 552
Oedipus 457
Offence 93, 159, 161, 358, 364, 406, 429, 450,
625, 705-710
Offend 63, 127, 363
Offended 705-707
Offensive 268
Offer 41, 78, 107, 147, 184, 233, 273, 286,
327 f., 350, 367, 386, 402, 440, 447
Offer money 28
Offer sacrifice 235, 293, 718
Offering 29, 39-43, 166, 230, 235, 238, 294,
297, 410-412, 447 f., 461, 815, 860, 862
Office 48-51, 114, 122f., 149, 151 f., 164,
195, 233, 253-256, 294, 334f., 342, 373 f.,
376, 380 f., 406, 415, 456, 500, 505, 607, 730
Office-bearer 362, 607
Officer 368
Official 234, 254, 335, 363, 369, 376, 777
Offspring 77, 85, 311, 571
Oil 226, 294, 334 f., 710-713, 794, 875
Oil of gladness 294, 354
Oil press 710
Ointment 294 f., 710
Old 49, 75, 669-676, 713-716, 834
Old age 272
Old man 127, 250, 473, 675, 715
Oleaster 712
Olive 660, 710-713, 737, 794
Olivet 713
Olympus 185, 232
Omega 59
Omen 148, 233, 554, 626, 633
Omit 351
Omnipotence 149, 509, 689, 877 f.
Omnipresence 73, 146, 613, 862
Omniscience 183
Onan 577
Once 703, 716-725
Once-for-all 447, 716-725
One 70, 73, 79, 84, 124, 309, 377, 396, 408,
450, 564, 618, 703, 716-725
One’s own 838-840
Oneness 80, 204, 445, 926
Onesimus 434, 550
Only 76, 81, 408, 703, 716-725
Only-begotten 75, 723-725
Ontological 396
Open 31, 179, 194, 302, 401, 411, 560, 673,
726-734, 795, 813, 897
997
GENERAL INDEX
Opening 29 f., 726-729
Openness 308 f., 311, 734~737
Operative 287
Ophites 645
Opinion 44f., 169, 311, 362, 392 f., 398, 430,
719, 767
Opponent 112, 140f., 183, 263, 311 f., 315 f.,
327, 340, 378, 401, 431, 434, 437, 448, 460,
469, 473
Opportunist 899
Opportunity 30, 101, 132, 137, 156, 351, 417,
728, 730, 770 f., 892
Oppose 314, 380, 385
Opposite 198
Opposition 129, 144, 202, 314, 372, 383, 435,
631, 676, 734, 764, 794
Oppress 260, 363, 807-809, 822
Oppressed 257 f., 821
Oppression 100, 201, 206, 368, 424, 680, 807-
809
Oppressor 363
Optimism 430
Oracle 107 f., 296, 367, 879, 881, 890, 914
Oral instruction 440
Oration 369
Orator 150
Orcus 85
Ordain 235, 438-451
Order 50, 57, 67, 101-103, 134, 142, 160-163,
189, 213, 254, 266, 300, 390, 392, 436, 439 f.,
452, 459, 592, 603, 609, 633, 658-660, 698,
719, 776
Orderliness 95
Orderly 438-451, 476
Ordinance 92, 128, 132, 150, 160, 228, 236,
440
Ordination 151 f.
Organ 180-182, 391, 599
Organism 253
Orgiastic 353
Orgy 355
Oriental 336
Orientation 404, 864
Origen 81, 506, 754 f., 869
Origenists 506 f.
Origin 35, 66, 76, 79, 124, 127, 129, 137f.,
157, 160, 217, 235, 305, 310f., 334, 339 f.,
394, 406, 656
Original 287, 713
Originator 80, 128
Ornament 92, 159
Orphan 71, 359, 540, 737 f., 823
Orphic mythology 158, 188
Orphism 643
Orthodox 126, 316, 718
Orthodoxy 505, 864
Osiris 274, 556
Ossuary 573
Ostentatious 136
Ostracism 772
Other 404, 739-742, 785 f.
Other-worldly 357
Out of date 443
Out of tune 434
Outburst 653
998
Outcast 57, 170
Outcome 55, 63, 364
Outline 284, 291
Outlook 49, 313, 452, 723
Outpouring 230, 328
Outrage 92
Outside 49, 445, 812
Outsider 216, 343, 379, 402, 456 f., 748, 752
Outward 150, 217
Outward appearance 288 f.
Outweigh 357
Overcome 42, 136, 157f., 221, 240, 243, 260,
282, 359, 419 f., 438, 446, 453, 763 f.,
Overflow 121, 128, 130f.
Overjoyed 352-354, 436
Overlook 266
Overlord 158, 308
Overpassionate 587-589
Overreaching 201
Overripe 587-589
Overrule 299
Overseer 318, 777
Oversight 411, 777
Overstamp coins 308
Overthrow 146
Overcome 315
Overweening 130
Overwhelmingly strong 587-589
Owe 115, 666-668
Own 413, 438, 456
Owner 50, 297, 508-520, 581, 833
Ownership 438, 572-574, 858
Pace 369
Pacify 777
Pagan 71, 102, 124, 126f., 177, 199, 211, 221,
235, 285 f., 309, 398, 516, 680, 790-795, 885,
923, 928
Paganism 85, 173, 242, 309, 507, 576, 687,
720, 742
Pain 28, 181, 414, 416, 419-421, 674, 807
Painful 243
Paint 334
Painting 287
Pair 575, 686
Palace 190, 247, 254
Palestine 791, 796, 823, 836, 847, 849
Palestinian Christianity 785
Pallas 224
Pangs 157
Pannenberg and the Parousia 908 f.
Pantheistic 77, 919
Pantheon 67, 85, 190, 375
Panticapaeum 767
Parable 217, 279, 329, 382, 389, 401, 413,
462, 501 f., 619, 643, 660, 667, 736, 743-760,
801, 803, 852, 889, 904 f., 916
Parables in NT, List of 749-751
Parables of the Kingdom 388
Parabolic 280 f., 529, 532, 630
Paraclete 84, 231, 709, 787, 878, 883
Paradise 45, 191, 205, 208, 688 f., 760-764,
920
Paradox 327, 359, 433 f., 449, 884
Paraensis 129, 890
Parallelism 870, 893, 919
Paralytic 415
Pardon 42, 115 f., 118-121, 131, 185, 865
Parentage 694
Parents 43, 49 f., 92, 180, 224, 539, 737, 816,
834, 871
Park 760
Parody 430
Paronomasia 655, 831
Parousia 33, 48, 63, 192, 194, 196, 230, 243,
245, 252, 272, 354, 382f., 387 f., 447, 486,
503, 517, 531, 534, 630, 653, 738, 771, 789,
846, 875, 886-935
Part 295, 302, 303 f., 445, 452
Partake 269-271, 661, 718
Partiality 449, 625
Participate 288, 355
Participation 40, 162, 268, 270, 273, 360, 446
Particularist 350
Particularity 307
Parting 352, 356, 416
Partisan 622
Partition 722
Partner 111, 221, 230, 250, 349, 520, 581, 667
Partnership 307, 742
Party 116, 298, 303, 343
Pass 29
Pass away 193, 304, 396, 419, 714, 910
Pass by 281, 600
Pass judgment 365, 370, 429
Pass on 101
Pass over 184-187, 438, 766
Passing 213
Passion 112, 116, 123, 179 f., 182, 216, 274,
299, 311, 314, 327-329, 341, 368, 411, 434,
526, 644, 661, 787, 795, 808, 880
Passionate 149, 265
Passionate love 538-547
Passive 846
Passover 185, 277, 355, 410 f., 437, 441, 461 f.,
463, 478, 521 f., 569, 637, 644, 676, 716, 783,
892
Passover liturgy 522
Past 295, 314, 353 f., 393, 396, 407, 714, 891,
905
Past the peak 587-589
Pastor 114, 187
Pastoral 303, 411
Pasture 211, 412, 438, 586
Paternal estate 317
Path 407
Patience 49, 63, 79, 105, 183, 240, 243-245,
261, 264, 361, 366, 385, 410 f., 682, 764-776,
782, 806, 809, 834, 901
Patient 168, 245, 291, 301, 712, 772-776
Patina 27
Patmos 775
Patriarch 104, 297, 314, 317-319, 442, 635,
791, 803
aoe 51, 191, 284, 290f., 501, 619, 775,
89
Paul 28, 46f., 54, 61, 73, 77f., 80, 83-85, 94,
101 f., 104-106, 110-113, 119-123, 126f.,
129, 131, 135f., 139, 141, 144 f., 147, 152,
159-163, 169, 176, 179, 203, 211-214, 217 f.,
GENERAL INDEX
222 f., 229, 235, 243, 253, 255, 263, 273,
276 f., 282f., 286, 302, 304, 314f., 319f.,
328, 340, 349, 354, 356, 360, 366, 368 f.,
391, 397-399, 402 f., 405-407, 420, 422-
424, 434, 444, 450, 480, 503, 523, 550, 557,
573, 580 f., 587, 596 f., 600, 604 f., 618-620,
623, 632, 641, 660 f., 671-673, 678, 682, 691,
695, 699, 702, 707, 713, 722, 728 f., 736, 740—
742, 755 f., 762 f., 765, 768, 770 f., 773-775,
786, 789, 793-795, 800 f., 804, 806 f., 809,
815-819, 826-828, 834 f., 844, 847, 861, 868,
880, 882-885, 895, 899, 902 f., 905, 907, 913,
919-927
Paul of Samosata 506
Pay 62, 386
Pay attention 132, 134, 175, 890
Pay court 30
Pay tax 62, 850
Pay tithe 693 f.
Payment 41, 43, 118, 898
Peace 72, 78, 83, 108 f., 113, 170, 183, 216,
230, 257, 268, 328, 357, 359, 363, 374, 388,
439, 482, 517, 521, 585, 590-593, 597, 617,
666, 720-723, 776-783, 807, 817, 819, 866,
874, 899
Peace offering 461
Peaceful 776-783
Peacemaker 776-783
Pearl 386, 502, 714, 833 f.
Peasant 820, 822
Peculiar 245, 310
Pedantry 448
Pederast 569-571
Peloponnesian War 802
Penalty 48, 142, 449, 572, 858
Penance 208, 263 f., 666
Penetrate 349
Peniel 317
157, 159, 183, 420, 864
Penitence
Penitent 152, 817
384
157
Penitential prayers
Penitential ritual
Pentateuch 331, 357, 440, 442, 444, 638, 641
Pentecost 91, 176, 186, 252, 400, 426, 629,
ae 703, 732, 739 f., 768, 783-788, 855, 916,
918
Pentecostalism 785
People 34f., 38, 70, 92, 106, 124, 127, 131,
134, 151, 158, 185, 222, 224 f., 237, 241, 252,
254, 256, 306f., 310, 312f., 315, 319, 321,
326-328, 331 f., 334 f., 342 f., 349, 351, 363,
373, 399, 410, 412, 425, 438, 448, 457, 498,
539, 562, 642, 788-805
People of God 38, 53, 56, 63 f., 69, 71, 73, 83,
86f., 99 f., 105f., 129, 149, 154, 161-163,
175, 190, 194, 202, 215, 218, 226, 230, 236 f.,
239 f., 242, 248 f., 255, 268, 275, 295, 297,
301, 306f., 310, 315, 328-330, 337, 349 f.,
353, 358, 363 f., 367 f., 374, 380, 385, 412 f.,
425, 432, 442, 460, 512, 514, 541 f., 572f.,
577, 580 f., 583, 587, 628, 652, 670, 673, 680,
695 f., 698, 701, 712, 718, 722, 731 f., 738,
or 810, 812, 835, 839-841, 873, 918,
927
People of the land 801
999
GENERAL INDEX
People of Yahweh 796
Peor 638
Perceive 132, 172, 269, 392-406
Perception 172, 391, 392-406
Perea 849
Perfect 59, 61f., 65, 98, 101, 144, 162, 229,
245, 304, 354, 359, 366, 402, 415, 447-449,
477, 531, 563, 566, 592 f., 669, 681, 717, 781 f.
789, 824, 832, 879
Perfecter 59 f., 64, 185, 331
Perfection 59-62, 64 f., 77, 96, 105, 143, 320,
411, 483, 546, 606, 690, 695, 741, 762, 908
Perform 350
Performance 327, 351
Perfume 294 f. |
Pergamum 233, 676, 678, 686
Period 61, 255, 887
Periphrasis 426
Perish 159, 214, 269 f., 284, 394, 459, 705, 831
Perishable 657, 659
Perizzites 636
Perjury 471
Permanence 189
Permanent 220, 305, 349
Permeate 461
Permissible 273
Permission 607 f.
Permit 123, 732
Permitted 606-611, 811
Persecute 805-809
Persecution 34, 37, 136, 196, 231, 258, 270,
309-311, 316, 358-361, 363, 368, 373, 381,
383, 460, 663 f., 700, 730, 766, 774, 776, 781,
ae 805-809, 840, 844, 904, 911-913, 915-
918
Persecutor 605, 806
Persephone 729
Perseverance 240, 245, 736, 767 f., 868
Persevere 767 f., 772-776
Persian 306f., 335 f., 811, 847, 850
Persist 154, 767 f.
Persistence 131, 462, 767 f.
Person 49, 146, 149, 157f., 181 f., 217, 220,
233, 313, 341, 391 f., 534 f., 566-568, 648,
652, 864
Person of Christ (— Christ, Person of)
Personal 67, 70, 99 f., 107, 121, 129, 148, 156,
158, 187, 215, 241-244, 288, 305, 332, 342,
377, 392, 395 f., 398 f., 403 f., 437, 444, 456,
511, 582, 863, 867
Personality 181 f., 568, 841
Personification 115, 190, 442, 444
Perspective 240, 360
Persuade 350 f., 398
Perverse 36, 72, 469
Perversion 51
Pervert 221, 370, 566, 822
Pesher 187, 314, 754
Pessimism 241, 276
Pestilence 349, 911
Peter 28, 114, 119, 136, 152, 252, 302 f., 319,
354, 368, 404, 433 f., 469, 542, 557, 596f.,
618, 624f., 641, 652 f., 689, 691, 708, 728,
731-733, 736, 754, 769, 786, 794 f., 840, 851,
858, 877, 895, 916
1000
Petition 117, 860 f., 878, 882-885
Petrify 153
Petronius 899
Phantom 284 |
Pharaoh 116, 154 f., 378, 557, 569, 636 f., 640,
796, 835
Pharisaic 281, 314, 579, 864, 866
Pharisaism 309, 810-814
Pharisees 101, 133, 147, 170, 207, 222, 254,
262, 272, 303, 311, 313, 316, 321, 350, 382,
385, 399, 419, 434, 442 f., 448, 460, 462, 467-
469, 474, 570, 584, 596, 610, 623 f., 640, 693 f.,
708 f., 712, 730, 732, 785, 801, 810-814, 823,
842 f., 865, 880, 921
Pharnabazus 848
Pharsalos 124
Phenomenon 137f.
Philadelphia 399, 474, 550, 727, 775
Philemon 122, 550, 600
Philetus 550
Philip 114, 334, 387, 550, 557, 728, 768
Philip II of Macedon 550
Philip Herod I 550
Philip Herod II 550
Philippi 136, 550, 707, 895, 899
Philippians 131, 179, 343, 360, 550, 804, 816
Philistines 260, 306, 308, 374, 637, 742
Philo 72, 109, 125, 128, 140, 182, 192, 222,
234 f., 241, 249, 266, 289-291, 310, 324, 332,
355, 357, 363, 373, 377, 493, 512, 573, 579,
583, 590, 592f., 607 f., 651, 658-660, 681,
690, 707, 738, 754, 756f., 762, 779, 784 f.,
798, 821, 878, 883
Philodemus of Gadara 259
Philologus 550
Philosopher 92, 265, 355, 372, 456, 550
Philosopher king 372
Philosophical 67, 124
Philosophy 103, 125, 269, 284, 377, 392f.,
418 f., 430f., 439, 442, 453, 460, 538, 550,
648
Phoebus 85
Phoenicia 847
Phoenician 848
Phoenix 725
Photinus 507
Phylactery 136
Physical 59, 164, 172, 180-182, 184, 193, 220,
263, 265, 267, 271, 274, 350-352, 415, 419 f.,
422-424, 478, 539, 719, 920
Physician 164, 166-170, 386
Physique 129, 659
Picture 279, 281, 746, 927
Piece 296
Piety 47, 75, 85, 90-95, 100, 106, 160, 201,
216, 225, 236-238, 275, 353, 355, 426, 469,
473, 588, 605, 863 f.
Pilate 331, 339, 368f., 378 f., 449, 451, 526 f.,
549, 623 f., 799, 801, 849 f.
Pilgrim 194, 437, 873
Pilgrim festivals 311
Pilgrimage 326, 329, 376, 920
Pillar 188 f., 249, 493, 827
Pindar 140
Pinnacle 235
Pioneer 331, 669
Pious 49, 57, 71 f., 91, 105, 125, 134, 176, 178,
216, 232, 237, 257, 288, 309, 335, 394, 432,
450, 565, 810, 817, 867
Pisces 558
Pisgah 638
Pisidian Antioch 300, 451
Pit 205, 351, 701
Pith 180
Pithom 635 f.
Pitiless 267, 594-598
Pitiful 594-598
Pity 543, 581, 593, 594-600, 738
Pivotal 227
Placate 860
Place 161, 276, 303
Place under 368
Plague 58, 586, 625, 628, 637, 654, 711, 720,
889
Plan 72f., 77, 149, 156, 195, 198, 216, 220,
253-256, 290, 298, 302, 336, 376, 666, 819, 912
Planet 459, 509, 558
Plant 27, 59, 129, 180, 185, 198, 210 f., 252 f.,
312, 474, 476, 520, 565, 601, 657 f., 889
Platform 185, 369
Plato 103, 188, 284, 430, 439, 457, 498, 643,
648, 719, 772, 776
Platonism 919
Play 430, 436, 468
Play at funerals 418
Play on words 431 f., 434, 715, 766, 837
Playfulness 431
Plea 215, 307, 383
Plead 828-885
Pleasant 98, 103, 105, 116, 211, 271, 297, 475
Please 116, 160, 241, 244, 357, 780, 814-820,
858
Pleasing 103, 432, 774, 789, 814-817
Pleasure 118, 138, 271, 273-275, 352, 356,
419, 458, 550, 814-820
Pleasure-loving 475
Pledge 39-44, 142, 667, 881
Plentiful 128, 130
Plenty 690
Pliny the Elder 553, 556 f.
Plot 296, 318, 430, 748, 757
Plough 385, 742
Pluck 267
Pluck up 252
Plumbline 239
Plunge 150, 198
Pluto 85, 729
Pneumatology 388
Pneumatopsychosomatic 567
Poet 85, 233, 326
Pogrom 309
Point 354, 717
Poison 27-29, 295, 334, 349, 552-562, 661
Poisoner 552-562
Polemic 261, 263, 310-315, 403 f., 449
Policy 802
Politarch 801-804
Politeness 513 f.
Political 107, 110 f., 147, 257, 259, 306, 310 f.,
GENERAL INDEX
325, 341, 372, 374, 376, 385, 438 f., 475, 497,
657, 777, 788, 802, 887, 903, 905, 921
Political equality 309
Politics 306, 509
Poll-tax 850
Pollution 286
Polyandry 575
Polygamy 564, 575 f., 578 f.
Polytheism 66, 71, 284 f., 396, 507
Polytheistic world 278
Pomp 44
Pompeii 683
Pompey 308
Pompous 198
Poor 49 f., 56, 63, 71, 110, 118, 141, 200, 255,
257, 259-261, 263-267, 273, 275, 300 f., 329,
358, 363, 379, 386, 388, 396, 400, 429, 453,
499, 540, 543, 594, 596, 820-829, 834, 842-
844, 846 f., 852
Poor in spirit 824
Populace 788-790
Popular 437
Popular assembly 788-790
Population 305, 788, 795, 801
Porch 30 |
Portent 192, 629, 633, 911
Porter 254
Portion 295-304, 791
Portrayal 431
Poseidon 85, 233
Posidonius 639
Position 44, 48-50, 80, 102, 158, 198, 257,
259, 319, 325, 336, 373, 378, 446, 674, 862
Positive 310, 312, 315, 451
Possess 200, 295-304, 311, 316f., 364, 397,
438, 538
Possessed 691
Possession 49, 267, 297-303, 307, 310, 325,
335, 499, 649, 791, 794, 797, 800, 828
Possessions 51, 63, 99, 191, 255, 286, 302,
305, 308, 356, 428 f., 438, 501, 539, 549, 582,
596, 619, 800, 820, 824 f., 829-853
Possible 606-611
Possibility 399
Post-exilic 309
Post-millenarianism 389
Postmillenialist 702
Posture 869
Pot 349
Potentate 70
Potiphar 116
Potter 434, 609
Pounds 838
Pour 785, 787, 853-855
Poverty 197, 201, 267, 820-829, 831, 882
Power 30, 44, 46-48, 51, 61 f., 64, 68, 70-75,
78 f., 86, 94, 99, 111, 113, 119f., 128, 142,
146-151, 159, 162, 165, 169, 177, 181-185,
191, 194 f., 198, 200, 204, 207, 210, 215, 223-
225, 230, 232 f., 237, 243, 245, 271 f., 282,
287 f., 290, 303, 309, 318, 335 f., 358 f., 368,
372 f., 376, 380, 382, 384, 388, 398 f., 403,
411-413, 430, 433, 462, 508, 510-514, 516f.,
601-611, 625, 648 f., 654, 660, 680, 693, 712,
1001
GENERAL INDEX
Power continued
716, 718, 783, 788, 834, 842 f., 868, 874, 877 f.,
883, 916 f., 921, 928 f.
Power of attorney 608
Power of darkness 608
Powerful 109, 425, 601-616
Powerless 147, 259, 393, 601-616
Powers 67, 73-75, 101, 165-167, 179, 195 f.,
198-200, 213, 251, 270 f., 274, 284-286, 364,
393, 430, 457f., 460 f., 485, 514, 518, 559,
602-606, 631, 645, 736, 868
Powers that be 609
Practical 390, 400
Practice 61, 147, 391, 437, 659
Practise magic 552-562
Praetorium 32, 378
Praise 44, 46f., 49, 58, 80, 83, 100, 105, 128,
159, 173, 176, 190 f., 194, 201 f., 206, 243,
260 f., 265, 272, 290, 294, 302, 305, 319, 328,
353 f., 418, 422, 425 f., 436, 478, 516f., 528,
540, 596, 602, 604, 625, 650, 724, 738, 744,
784, 797, 823, 841, 844, 855, 862, 865, 868,
874, 883, 893, 925
Praiseworthy 98
Prayer 32, 64, 71, 73 f., 77, 83, 118, 122, 152,
160 f., 166 f., 174 f., 178, 185, 190, 194, 212,
216, 221, 227, 229, 231, 235, 237, 239, 244,
259 f., 291, 294, 297, 299, 311, 313, 320,
325-327, 351, 353, 359 f., 366, 396, 400, 416,
424, 428, 469, 509, 512, 518, 521, 530, 561,
596, 619, 626, 650, 653 f., 666, 669, 721, 726,
730, 735-737, 768, 771, 774, 793, 797, 803,
807, 816-819, 855-886, 927
Prayer of sanctification 522
Prayer-bands 136
Prayer straps 864
Praying in the Spirit 873, 883
Preach 107, 109, 126, 169, 367, 413, 447, 632,
816
Preacher 113, 381
Preaching 73, 75f.,85, 100f., 111 f., 129, 152,
155, 169, 176, 179, 208, 221 f., 250, 255, 338-
340, 342, 351 f., 358-360, 366, 377, 379, 382-
388, 418, 443, 451, 543, 547, 603, 633, 654,
665, 676, 679 f., 709, 732, 740, 780, 782, 818,
844, 902, 904, 908, 916, 918
Precedence 57, 157, 427, 429
Precedent 373, 443
Precept 261, 270
Precious 49, 76, 541
Precious stones 674
Preconceived idea 363
Precondition 775
Predestination 298, 397, 609
Predict 320, 351
Prediction 339, 880
Pre-ethical 230
Pre-existence 46, 828
Pre-existent 189, 289, 326, 329, 500, 504, 546,
565, 645, 652
Preference 364
Prefigure 191
Pregnancy 423, 587
Pre-history 889
Prejudice 363 f.
1002
Pre-millenarianism 389
Premillenialist 701
Premises 247
Premonition 599, 624
Preparation 54, 315, 334
Preparation for the Passover
Prepare 229, 253, 382, 388
Preparedness 165
Prerogative 320
Presbyter 563
Prescription 813
Presence 45, 47, 68, 70, 82, 86 f., 100, 129, 150,
160 f., 163, 165, 186, 215, 282, 326, 354, 356,
387, 463, 484, 489, 491, 493, 517, 523, 535f.,
585, 627, 650, 656f., 718, 777 f., 782, 869,
881, 884, 886-935
Present 40f., 54, 65, 96, 110, 112, 119, 122,
130, 144, 186, 190, 192, 242, 246, 252, 266 f.,
277, 282, 287 f., 298, 313, 315, 329, 343, 350,
353 f., 357, 359 f., 363, 367, 370, 375, 382-
384, 389, 393, 396, 417, 420 f., 426, 437, 447,
452, 461, 482, 496, 503, 515, 517-519, 527, 530
f., 536, 543, 606, 613, 630, 633, 654, 674-676,
703, 714, 749, 789 f., 798, 809, 844, 846, 886—
935
Present age 245, 275, 383, 672, 843
Presentation formula 279
Preservation 123, 141, 364, 572, 781, 862, 868
Preserve 95, 99, 132, 134, 159, 295, 838-840
President 158, 234
Press upon 807-809
Pressure 306, 765, 808
Prestige 334
Presumption 834
Presumptuous 130, 201
Presupposition 340, 343, 393, 631
Pretence 49, 468-470
Pretend 468—470
Pretender 34, 314, 338, 379, 430, 468-470
Pretension 462
Prevail 305
Prevarication 400
Prevent 220-223, 326, 394
Prey 421, 470
Price 43, 48 f., 711
Priceless 480
Prick 572
Pride 120, 148, 162, 198 f., 243, 249, 259-261,
264, 352, 358, 403, 436, 442, 617f., 661
Pride of life 475
Priest 53, 61, 63, 141, 154, 167, 223, 226-228,
231, 232-236, 238, 240, 256, 287, 294, 296 f.,
307, 311, 320 f., 335, 367, 380, 411, 415, 437,
440 f., 447, 456 f., 464-467, 569, 577, 590-
594, 631, 649, 652, 693 f., 701, 711, 726, 795,
799, 811, 813, 823 f., 842, 863
Priest, Chief 32, 167, 234, 339, 469, 623, 641
Priest, High 63, 80, 123, 178, 194 f., 199, 217,
226, 230 f., 232-236, 238, 244, 282, 289, 293,
296, 327, 335-337, 368, 378 f., 447, 451, 577,
590-593, 598, 614, 625, 642, 651 f., 664, 669,
674, 717 f., 799
Priest-King 335, 378, 590-593, 694
Priesthood 64, 125, 225, 228, 230, 232-236,
327
Priesthood continued
249, 320, 327, 380, 436, 448, 505, 574, 579,
590-593, 638, 693 f., 839, 899
Priestly 53, 147, 149, 228, 232-236
Priestly office 232-236, 447
Priestly oracle 240
Priestly service 195, 232-236
Primal 52, 205, 657
Primal man 158, 162, 195, 249, 645 f.
Primeval 197, 394, 452, 889
Primitive 250, 337-339
Prince 70, 205, 307, 312, 372, 376, 562, 797
Prince of gods 71
Prince of light 492
Prince of peace 779
Prince of this world 365, 609 f.
Principalities 162, 195 f., 559, 645, 736
Principle 66, 157, 188, 289, 309, 314, 327,
366 f., 427, 436 f., 446 f., 452, 663
Prior 187
Priority 800
Priscilla 847
Prison 29 f., 132, 134, 136, 205, 393, 434, 736
818
Priority 160, 314
Prisoner 121, 132, 168, 268, 295, 367, 517, 828
Private 107, 273, 325, 438, 456, 838, 869
Private profit 235
Privilege 49, 81, 122, 247, 294, 307, 309, 317,
350
Prize 62, 97, 807
Probation 696, 838
Problem 123, 160, 235, 286, 314, 374, 442, 453
Procedure 440
Proceed 222
Proceeds 847
Process 52, 62, 65, 128 f., 131, 269, 334, 364,
370, 383-385, 391
Proclaim 68, 78, 83, 107, 114, 125, 154, 179,
212, 255, 263, 274, 328, 373, 382, 401, 404,
443, 622
Proclamation 36, 54, 75, 77f., 108f., 111,
113 f., 121, 147, 175, 206, 221 f., 261 f., 269,
338 f., 343, 351, 357, 360, 375, 380, 382, 384—
387, 395, 536, 630-632, 654, 682, 740, 915,
928
Proconsul 369
Procreate 476-484
Procurator 308, 334
Prodigal 32, 170, 349, 386, 475, 600, 790
Prodigy 633 ;
Produce 271
Profane 223 f., 226 f., 230, 236, 650, 653
Profess 669
Professional mourners 418
Profit 254
Progenitor 319 .
Programme 308, 341
Progress 128, 130, 221
Prohibition 268, 272, 281, 284, 286f., 415,
554, 580, 732
Prologue 927
Prometheus 457, 490
Promise 39, 54, 65, 68, 70, 73, 76 f., 86, 100,
102, 107f., 111, 120, 122, 129f., 142, 152,
GENERAL INDEX
155 f., 159, 170, 176, 202 f., 238-240, 242 f.,
244 f., 250, 252, 258, 260-263, 265-267, 271,
276, 278, 282, 295, 297, 300-302, 310, 314,
317-319, 328, 330, 332, 342 ,358f., 380,
386, 388, 395 f., 399, 402, 415, 417, 419-421,
429, 435, 444 f., 447-449, 453, 472, 474, 478,
543, 570, 605, 617, 626, 631, 636, 641, 648 f.,
653, 661, 695, 709, 716, 727 f., 763, 775, 778 f.,
786 f., 797, 823, 825, 835, 854, 856 f., 863, 881,
897, 909, 916, 923
Promised land 258, 295-304, 331, 638
Pronounce 69, 147, 362, 370
Pronouncement 370, 395
Proof 77, 140, 165, 282, 284, 290 f., 338, 359,
379, 546, 631, 653, 743, 858
Propaganda 438
Proper 105, 606-611, 668
Property 134, 235, 247, 257, 296-298, 436,
438, 462, 552, 582, 820 f., 824, 829-835, 836—
847, 898
Property law 511
Prophecy 37, 86, 121, 165, 168, 228, 250, 252,
258, 314, 329, 367, 374, 379, 389, 410, 443,
487, 490, 545, 677, 680, 741, 797, 909 f., 915
Prophesy 161, 212, 470, 599
Prophet 114, 129, 152, 154, 167, 174, 176, 187,
216 f., 226, 228, 240, 252 f., 257, 306 f., 312 f.,
320 f., 326, 328, 337, 341, 352, 358, 367, 380,
432, 440, 442-444, 448, 453, 461, 472, 542,
559, 573, 626 f., 629, 633, 636, 638, 641, 665,
686, 711, 715, 724, 730, 737, 744, 786, 791,
803, 806, 827, 863, 913-915
Prophetic 174, 228, 276, 311 f., 432, 441
Prophetic perspective 910
Propitiation 766
Propitious 318
Propriety 160 f., 235
Prosecute 805
Prosecution 450
Proselyte 54, 85, 126, 311, 377, 438, 442, 457,
652, 732, 740, 792, 866
Proselytizing 792
Prospect 267, 319
Prosper 128, 452, 817
Prosperity 49, 478 f., 711, 776 f.
Prostitute 212, 325, 517, 541, 582-584
Prostitution 576
Prostrate 862, 875-879
Protect 133-135, 244, 254, 265, 314, 438, 653,
822
Protection 70, 83, 135f., 149, 194, 213, 224,
247, 368, 412 f., 429, 460, 521, 572-574, 626,
649, 660, 713, 821-823, 844, 860
Protector 821-823
Prototype 58
Proud 34, 198-200, 201, 262, 468, 617 f.
Prove 245, 252, 318, 355, 361, 883
Proverb 433, 462, 743-760, 881, 890
Provide 201, 411, 846
Providence 117 f., 223, 236, 663 f., 828
Providential 628
Province 320, 324, 788
Provincial 234
Provision 265, 318, 587, 737, 825, 832
Provisional 580.
1003
GENERAL INDEX
Provocation 259
Provoke 131, 308, 447, 450, 516
Proximity 53, 382, 384
Prudent 216, 616-620
Psalms 375, 444, 530, 864, 874
Psalms of Solomon 823, 867
Pseudo-Hippocrates 690
Pseudo-king 339
Pseudo-messiah 339, 633
Pseudonym
Pseudonymity 37
Psoriasia 464
Psychic 359, 556
Psychological 169, 182, 204, 220, 288, 422, 437
Psychological illness 166
Psychological schools 567-569
Psychology and NT 567-569
Psychosomatic 567
Ptolemaic period 898
Ptolemy I 849
Puberty 437
Public 150, 159 f., 212, 352 f., 493, 736, 788—
790, 800
Public opinion 308
Public speaker 369
Publish 108
Puffed up 253, 422
Pun 432 |
Punish 101, 140 f., 155, 189, 226, 266, 363, 510
Punishment 29, 117, 136, 138 141-143, 149,
157, 192, 206-209, 212, 265 f., 272, 275, 285,
362-367, 370, 415, 428, 439, 458 f., 478, 481,
570, 572, 630, 667, 775, 779, 792 f., 807, 823
Punitive 167, 201
Pupil 151, 291, 428, 445
Pure 102, 144, 178, 183, 224f., 227, 237f.,
249, 270, 357, 810
Purgatory 208
Purification 149, 225, 228, 307, 336, 472, 485,
623, 690
Purificatory 811, 854
rum 230, 235, 266, 289, 307, 360, 423, 675,
Purity 51, 95, 143, 144, 183, 244, 311, 503,
596, 742
Purpose 52, 79, 92, 94, 106, 121 f., 139, 145,
154, 218, 231, 251, 287, 294, 299, 362, 384,
396, 403, 420, 434, 477, 487, 546, 610, 668,
718, 721, 818 f., 926
Purposelessness 569
Pursue 317, 805-807
Put off 318
Put on 127, 264, 587, 925
Put to death 441
Python 552-562
Q source 341, 872
Qerioth 321
Quail 32, 628, 637
Qualification 299, 424, 440
Qualificatory formula 279
Qualify 228
Qualitative 424, 670, 739, 891
Quality 101, 120, 128, 151 f., 197, 200, 235,
237, 256, 398, 657, 661, 683, 685, 774
1004
Quantitative 424, 891
Quantity 128, 130f., 683, 685, 801
Quarantine 465
Quarrel 140, 363, 429, 447, 587, 645
Quarrelsome 550
Quart 7il
Quarter 689
Quasi-divine claim 380
Queen 372-389, 511
Queen of the South 381, 680
Quench 275
Question 101, 141, 144, 235, 266, 270, 334,
342, 362, 364, 374, 379, 382, 384, 387, 393 f.,
396 f., 399, 426, 430, 434, 469, 707, 857,
879-881
Questionable 266
Quiet 218
Quieten 260
Quirinius 320
Quiver 422
Qumran 45, 53, 56, 58, 72, 117f., 142, 194,
227, 237, 248 f., 257, 261, 279, 298 f., 302,
312-314, 335, 337, 353, 355, 364, 397, 459,
471 f., 480 f., 492, 512, 522, 542, 558, 565,
591, 595, 602, 609, 614, 640, 651, 667, 672,
696, 699, 707, 738, 779, 792 f., 798, 818, 824,
836, 851, 893, 897, 899
Quotation 186, 444
Ra‘amses 635 f.
Rabbi 125, 174, 327, 337, 358, 399, 432, 448,
514, 544, 549, 580, 629, 640, 652, 665, 721,
757, 818
Rabbinic 893
Rabbinic parables 433
Rabbinic theology 426, 791, 824, 864
Rabbinism 671
Race 35, 195, 221, 247, 411
Rachel 317 f., 578
Racial 309
Racial differences 83
Radiance 44, 46, 213, 284, 289 f.
Radiant 484-486
Radiate 44, 355, 484
Radical 427
Rage 421, 652
Rain 154, 188 f., 191, 193, 211, 265, 274, 866
Rainbow 626
Raise 78, 80, 91, 190, 192, 200-204, 206, 217,
252, 312, 358, 363, 388, 399, 446, 481, 631,
641, 718, 865
Raise the voice 201
Ramoth-gilead 754
Ramp 185
Rank 55, 57, 59, 158, 234, 298, 424, 436, 451,
720, 800
Ransom 42, 367, 795
Rape 260, 577
Rapture 352, 359, 482, 862
Ratification 59, 374
Ratify 659, 673
Rational 181, 230, 287, 339, 390 f., 659
Rationalize 67
Re 200, 279
Reaction 125, 373, 416, 422, 434f., 568, 621
Read 213, 218, 309, 357, 369
Readiness 105, 122, 307, 386, 433, 448, 654,
668, 717, 880
Readmission 152
Ready 244, 366
Ready-made 442
Real 135, 194 f., 280, 286, 393
Reality 120f., 166, 186, 281 f., 284, 287, 291,
308, 311, 314f., 366, 375, 382, 395, 404f.,
430, 448, 663
Realization 59, 65, 240, 300, 313, 382f., 385,
389, 406, 446
Realized eschatology (— Eschatology, Realized)
Realm 74
Reap 34
Reaper 32
Reason 67, 130, 137-139, 141, 143f., 157,
179 f., 182, 259, 356, 374, 408, 476, 493, 565,
567, 590, 657, 722
Reasonable 476
Rebekah 316 f., 587
Rebel 174
Rebellion 227, 311, 396, 432, 435, 566, 617,
638, 702, 722
Rebellious 448
Rebirth 113, 202, 242, 244, 394, 604
Rebuild 252
Rebuke 140f.
Recall 32
Recapitulate 156, 163
Receipt 433
Receive 83, 116, 123, 131, 146, 156, 186, 194,
221, 231, 238, 244-246, 255, 268, 300, 302,
329, 358, 369, 381 f., 385, 388, 403, 406f.,
440, 447, 775, 843, 868, 929
Receptivity 178, 269
Recipient 435
Reciprocal 51
Recitation 174
Reckon 427, 445, 458
Reclaim 858
Recognition 44, 48, 118, 147, 244, 335, 392-
406, 407, 815-817, 859
Recognition formula 279
Recognize 127, 155, 160 f., 282, 289, 300, 314,
328, 352, 363, 365, 378, 392-407, 438, 443,
448, 739
Recommend 263, 743
Recompense 41, 115
Reconciliation 42, 83, 137, 195, 318, 366, 370,
545, 585, 604, 614, 781 f., 827, 875
Recovery 163
Recreate 193
Red 496
Red heifer 32
Red Sea 637
Redeem 60, 79, 226, 274, 358, 394, 405, 411,
441, 675, 865
Redeemer 60, 111 f., 158, 195, 202, 209, 242,
249, 280, 330, 453, 640 f., 645 f., 655, 865,
867, 877
Redeemer-myth 645 f.
Redemption 37, 39, 42 f., 54, 78 f., 101, 109,
111, 120, 122, 145, 158, 195, 202, 204, 229 f.,
243, 302, 307, 343, 388, 425, 435, 509, 521,
GENERAL INDEX
565, 601, 611, 631, 777, 780, 798, 819, 866,
877, 883 f., 912
Redemptive 355, 445, 672, 713
Reduce 308
Re-establish 313
Referee 362
Refine 96, 419, 490
Reflect 75, 284, 390
Reflection 103, 284, 289 f., 392, 923
Reflex 568
Reformation 823
Refrain 286, 312
Refreshment 274, 281, 355, 590, 600
Refuge 91, 215, 240, 307, 471, 602, 779, 801.
Refusal 155, 223
Refuse 86, 126, 175, 179, 222, 296, 314, 340,
351, 358, 400, 405 f., 781, 855-859
Refute 140, 152
Regain 123
Regard 261, 286, 310, 364, 438
Regard favourably 817-820
Regeneration 836
Regret 420, 598
Regularize 439
Regulate 254, 366, 436, 442, 447, 452
Regulation 123, 134, 259, 270, 298, 447f.,
453, 461, 659, 666
Reign 64, 109, 147, 240, 248, 308, 326, 372-
389, 701, 775, 832
Reign of Christ 62, 98
Reign of God 54, 326, 871
Reimarus and Eschatology 902 f.
Reinterpretation 276, 339
Reiterate 317
Reject 82 f., 147, 229, 272, 309, 327, 368, 377,
400, 407, 417, 438, 449, 585, 622 f., 629, 709,
712, 794, 917
Rejection 135, 155, 159, 270, 291, 315, 374,
385, 407, 600, 680, 843 f., 916
Rejoice 243, 352-361, 420, 436, 517
Relate 280
Relationship 44, 50f., 71, 75f., 80, 84, 94,
99 f., 117, 121, 131, 133, 135, 160, 162, 178,
184f., 200, 206, 217, 220, 222 f., 230, 237,
242, 256, 260, 268, 272, 275 f., 287, 289,
295 f., 298, 301, 307, 317f., 334, 336, 340,
349, 366, 391-393, 395 f., 398, 400, 404, 413,
430, 432, 438 f., 458, 479, 481, 503, 510f.,
516-518, 534 f., 539-543, 545 f., 548, 569 f.,
579-590, 593, 605, 612, 619, 626, 648, 667,
707, 735, 738, 742, 772, 777, 779, 781 f., 786,
794, 798, 806, 812, 832, 834, 843, 858, 862,
871, 873, 877, 919 f., 928
Relative 43, 53, 225, 418, 538, 547-550, 737
Relativization 439
Release 121, 149, 378, 457, 858
Reliable 626
Reliance 340
Relief 107, 600, 681
Religion 85, 91, 103, 124, 453, 669
Religiosity 340
Religious 85, 90-92, 234, 237-239, 259, 287,
315, 325, 349 f., 353, 438 f., 659, 738, 887
Religious formula 278
Reluctance 156, 827, 856
1005
GENERAL INDEX
Reluctant 435
Rely 226, 240
Remain 297, 328, 546, 764, 772
Remarkable 621-626
Remarriage 563 f., 583
Remedy 552-562
Remember 206, 318, 533, 649, 871
Remembrance 149, 177, 892
Remind 359, 361, 431, 863
Remission 118, 351, 386, 667
Remit 116
Remnant 100, 228, 301, 306, 308, 312 f., 315,
471, 572, 691, 699, 798
Remorse 416f., 421 f.
Removal 151, 404
Remove 213, 244, 309, 315, 360, 363, 460
Remuneration 50
Rend 190
Renew 122, 129 f., 307, 313 f., 326, 670-676
Renewal 163, 183, 670-674, 737, 786, 885,
892
Renounce 244, 309, 340
Renunciation 117, 244, 307, 332, 429, 534,
824, 846
Repay 157 f., 230, 254, 667, 825
Repeat 447, 717
Repentance 61, 70, 101, 106, 157, 270, 276,
285 f., 290, 307, 312, 318, 326, 350 f., 358 Te;
366, 383 f., 408, 418-420, 422, 487, 566, 584,
680, 700, 717 f., 720, 737, 749, 770f., 843,
859, 865, 867
Rephidim 637
Replacement 273
Replica 284
Report 172
Repose 200
Reprehensible 349
res 80, 158, 287, 313 f., 316, 320, 341,
37
Representation 284, 287, 288 f.
Representative 57, 127, 200, 313, 327, 336
Repression 568
Reproach 140, 143, 835
Reproduction 288 f.
Reproof 140f.
Reptile 661
Repudiation 813, 819
Reputation 652, 683
Repute 44, 46, 367
Request
879-881
Require 236, 244, 307, 318, 446
Requirement 211, 440, 443, 447
Requite 735
Rescue 82, 126, 260, 630
Resemblance 343, 500-508
Reserve 829-836
Reserved 332
Resident alien 804
Resignation 360, 769, 772
Resist 80
Resistance 764
Resistance movement 307
Resolve 364, 818
Resources 34, 601-616
1006
116, 175, 179, 388, 855-864, 867-875,
Respect 48, 90, 92, 124, 128, 134, 203, 225,
328, 336, 438, 446, 549, 810
Respectable 447
Respectful 90, 103, 310
Respond 156, 270, 740
Response 196, 224, 350 f., 395, 568, 718, 826 f.
904
Responsible 137 f., 327, 336, 372, 737
Responsibility 137-139, 145, 150, 156, 159,
163, 181 f., 275, 295, 313, 335, 337, 562 f.,
663, 667 f., 790, 819
Responsive 680, 825
Rest 156, 262, 281, 363, 586 f., 681, 729, 777,
794, 809, 889 f.
Restate 315
Resting place 207
Restless 661, 724
Restoration 163, 252, 298, 307, 628, 687, 692,
893, 920
Restore 161, 166-169, 270, 363, 433, 480,
717 f., 921
Restrain 221-223
Restraint 135, 161, 459, 462, 765-767
Restriction 257
Result 132, 139, 155, 230, 310, 352, 400, 415,
420, 460
Resurrection 48, 58, 79, 111, 159, 178, 187,
203, 208, 216, 218, 230, 238, 241-243, 245,
252, 271, 280, 282, 295, 299, 304, 319, 327 f..,
340 f., 343, 351, 354, 356, 370, 380, 386- 388,
402 f, 419, 429, 444, 479-481, "483, "489, 504,
514, 526, 545, 550, 559, 568, 580, 603- 606,
625, 632 f., 640, 645, 655, 665, 672, 675, 680,
687, 691 f., 696, 701 f., 718, 728, 738 f., 746,
762, 764, 7185-787, 799, 811, 866 f., 882,
893 f., 900 f., 903, 905, 908 f., 911, 918-920,
924-926, 928 f.
Resurrection body 245, 597, 739
Resurrection, General 387 f.
Retain 286
Retention of sins 787
Retract 159
Retreat 220
Retribution 169, 276, 364, 366
Return 54,115, 154, 244, 250, 266, 308, 316 f.,
321, 351, 356, 358, 360, 394, 447, 517, 546,
584, 604, 675, 713, 787, 887, $89, 909, 930
Return of Christ 46, 83, 95, 187, 245, 353 f.,
488
Return of exiles 307
Reuben 317
Reubenites 638
Reuel 636
Reunion 309
Revaluation 427
Reveal 56, 73, 75, 141, 177f., 183, 198, 212,
216-218, 296, 299, 328, 335, 350, 354, 359,
366 f. 369, 379, 382, 396 f., 404, 407, A447 f.,
488-490, 517, 819, 863
Revealer 79, 119, 133, 135, 185, 204, 472 f.,
494, 636, 640, 642, 646, 72), 724
Revelation 45, 48, 67, 10-72, 74f., 83, 94,
106, 122 f., 127, 141, 162, 173 f., 176, 178,
191, 193, 198, 201 i 212, 315-220, 229, 240,
244, 250, 73. 278 f., 289 f.. 308, 315, 340,
Revelation continued
350, 359, 383, 393 f., 396-398, 400, 403-408,
448 f., 461, 482, 494, 503, 518, 548f., 637,
650, 653, 762, 806, 834 f., 900, 908 f.
Revelation, Structure of Book of 691, 702
Revelry 274-277, 356, 586
Revenge 157f.
Revere 232, 352
Reverence 85, 90-93, 229, 331, 439, 875-879
Reversal 843 f.
Reversed values 420
Revile 143, 406, 661, 775
Revive 181
Revolt 34, 291
Revolution 343
Revolutionary 308 f.
Revolutionize 386
Reward 47, 57, 104, 107f., 117-120, 157f.,
165, 192 f., 203, 206 f., 216, 261, 297 f., 302,
319, 353, 358, 366, 370, 426, 428 f., 433, 449,
498 f., 738, 772, 792 f., 813, 825, 830, 843 f.,
844 f., 866 f., 929
Rhetoric 93, 743
Rhetorical 334, 685
Rhodes 291
Rhyme _ 870
Rhythm 870
Rich 28, 57, 79, 130, 263, 267, 273, 285, 301,
416, 499, 660, 811, 820-822, 824, 826, 828,
833, 838, 840-845
Riches 78 f., 243, 245, 255, 349, 388, 460,
597, 794, 828 f., 837, 840-845
Rickets 414
Riddle 743-760
Ride 190
Ridicule 343, 429, 431-433, 436
Right 49f., 99, 120, 183, 201, 221, 247, 250,
256-258, 285, 302, 316 f., 336, 363, 370, 378,
440, 446, 497, 540, 582, 606-611, 716, 737 f.,
815, 857
Right hand 80, 146-153, 188, 194, 196, 199,
204, 245, 380, 385, 475, 614, 883
Righteous 47, 51, 56, 66, 72, 82, 91f., 94f.,
144, 149, 155, 179, 191, 201-204, 206 f., 215,
228, 237, 259, 272, 276, 298, 313, 326, 370,
431, 434, 479, 481, 486, 659, 681, 707, 724,
735 f., 761, 798, 808, 824, 832, 837, 861,
866 f., 899
Righteousness 42, 48, 53, 72 f., 78, 93, 101,
111, 119, 121, 128, 133, 136f., 141, 148, 179,
229, 236, 242, 245, 258, 267 f., 275, 287, 299 f.,
307, 363, 366, 370, 374, 387 f., 396, 442, 444,
453, 469, 482f., 492, 494, 497, 499, 539f,,
543f., 546, 590-593, 595, 600, 641, 669, 676,
682, 723, 742, 777, 779, 781 f., 794, 806,
817 f., 835, 842, f., 864, 884, 899
Rights ofa citizen 801-804
Rigid 153, 812
Rigour 270
Riot 623
Ripen 675
Rise 63, 242, 327
Risen 58, 81, 83, 113 f., 176, 186, 194, 196,
207, 242, 282, 302, 332, 340, 342, 354, 358-
361, 388, 399, 488, 624, 785, 787, 902, 915
GENERAL INDEX
Rising 367, 644
Risk 104, 159, 350, 368
Rite 59, 152, 228, 233 f., 236, 552
Ritual 86, 151, 157, 199, 223, 236, 268, 272,
326 f., 336, 415, 556
Ritual anointing 711
Ritual bath 652
Ritual cleansing 285
Ritual washing 150
Ritualistic 225
Rival 372, 374
Rivalry 818
River 130, 157, 232
Road 220
Roam 457
Roar 421, 423
Rob 361
Rob temples
Robber 236
Robe 412
Rock 30, 129, 159, 218, 220, 249, 253, 277,
313, 433, 619, 623, 652, 705f., 709 f., 731-
734, 754 f.
Rock of stumbling 706
Rod 378
Rod of iron 570, 795
Role 147f., 158, 160 f., 231, 447
Roll 157, 418
Roman 373, 378-381, 383, 430, 438, 451,
461, 572, 608, 802, 849-851, 899, 922
Roman citizen 331, 804
Roman colony 308
Roman procurator 334
Romans 308
Rome 311, 316, 451, 640, 792, 804, 816, 847,
850, 884, 918
Root 253, 312, 315, 406
Root of bitterness 782
Rostrum 369
Rough 153, 155, 464
Rouse 136
Route 266
Row 451
Royal 372-389
Royal family 437
Royal household 249
Royal priesthood 228, 380, 839
Royal Psalms 374
Royal sanctuaries
Royalty 96
Rub 334
Rudder 435
Rudiments 451-453
Rue 210f.
Ruin 149, 308, 328, 367, 583, 609, 629
Rule 73, 76, 83, 95, 120, 123, 129, 183, 189,
213, 240, 242, 257f., 261 f., 305, 308, 311,
326 f., 335, 337, 360, 363, 365, 372-389, 394,
396, 436, 438-452, 499, 510-520, 548, 603,
631, 781, 877
Rule the household 508-510
Ruler 57, 70f., 105, 158, 160, 202, 257, 265,
288, 301, 337, 372-389, 412, 456, 512, 514,
519, 539, 568, 601-616, 637, 641, 674, 693,
1007
232-236
225
GENERAL INDEX
Ruler continued
777, 792, 796, 832, 840, 844, 898
Ruling class 315
Ruling power 606-611
Rumour 172, 457
Run after 805-807
Runner 807
Rust 27f., 831, 836
Ruth 116, 577, 888
Sabaoth 556
Sabbath 133, 165, 174, 226, 267, 396, 426, 499,
514, 518 f., 625 f., 665, 692, 697, 754, 800,
811, 871, 880, 887, 889, 931
Sabbath-breaker 499
Sabbath-offering 410
Sabbatical year 298, 822
Sabellianism 507
Sabellius 507
Sackcloth 418
Sacral 189, 206, 274, 306, 326, 334, 336
Sacral kingship 644
Sacrament 534 f.
Sacramental 271, 273
Sacramentalism 393, 535, 906
Sacred 224~232, 233-235, 270, 309, 373
Sacred marriage 576, 584
Sacred time 891
Sacrifice 39-43, 49, 59, 63 f., 74, 78, 94, 97,
102, 107f., 116, 118f., 132, 147, 151, 199,
208, 211, 223, 225, 228, 230, 232-236, 237 f.,
244, 249, 259, 272 f., 285 f., 293, 327 f., 386,
410-414, 447, 449, 461, 463, 521, 525, 535f.,
555 f., 559, 569, 593, 610, 618, 638, 650, 652,
664, 676, 689, 692 f., 711, 713, 717 f., 720, 803,
816-818, 854 f., 860, 885
Sacrificer 151, 234
Sacrificial 74, 164, 174, 225, 234, 286, 288,
326 f., 355, 440 f., 447, 533, 549, 599, 604,
674, 854
Sacrilege 233, 235
Sad 386, 419-423
Saddle 317
Sadducees 207, 303, 311, 321, 462, 578, 580,
584, 640, 691, 785, 810-813, 880
Sadness 180, 357, 359
Safe 134, 240, 244
Safeguard 136, 738
Safety 297, 364, 777
Sage 377
Saints 83, 217, 223-238, 243, 294, 298, 302,
380, 389, 401, 429, 489, 600, 604, 613, 625,
oF 669, 702, 718, 731, 776, 798, 826, 868,
Saints of the Most High 376, 607, 610
Sake 115, 387
Salary 433
Sale 273
Salem 324, 378, 590-593, 694
Salim 592
Salt 746
Salutary 419
Salutation 780 f.
Salute 358, 795
Salvation 31, 37, 40, 45, 47, 50, 53-56, 58, 61,
1008
63, 72-75, 77 f., 80, 83, 99-101, 106, 108 f.
111-114, 116, 119, 122, 134 f., 138, 141, 147,
149, 156, 160, 168, 170, 174, 176, 178 f., 189,
193-195, 198, 200, 203, 213, 216, 226, 239-
243, 245, 255 f., 258 f., 265-268, 270 f., 275,
277 f., 280, 300—303, 306-309, 313-315, 331 f.,
335, 337, 342 f., 353-355, 357 f., 363 f., 388,
393-397, 400, 402-407, 411, 420, 431, 433,
441, 444-446, 451, 458, 470, 480, 484, 490-
493, 498 f., 532, 535f., 545, 548, 566, 581,
585, 597 f., 603-605, 627, 629-633, 649, 664—
666, 668-671, 675 f., 690, 699, 705 f., 708 f.,
714f., 717f., 722f., 737, 741, 746, 770 f.,
773, 777-781, 791-794, 808 f., 819, 825, 830,
838 f., 844, 859, 863 f., 873, 878 f., 881, 887-
891, 900, 908, 918, 925, 928
Salvation history 45, 47, 75, 80, 84, 111, 119,
123, 130, 135, 255, 298, 300, 303, 314, 364,
396, 408, 443, 527, 570, 663-665, 691, 695,
787, 807, 907 f., 917 f., 920
Salvation of Israel 308, 899
Salvation of Zion 308
Samaria 306, 387, 557, 849, 878, 918, 921
Samaritan 301, 306, 321, 339, 427, 467, 544,
550, 591, 596, 600, 698, 742, 749, 784 f., 793,
805, 878, 927
Sample 290
Samson 225, 228, 458
Samuel 374, 432, 554
Sanctification 64, 78, 144, 223-238, 781, 819
Sanctify 63, 75, 223-238, 302, 326, 800
Sanction 161, 236
Sanctuary 45, 53, 64, 91, 184 f., 194, 199, 228,
232-236, 244, 247 f., 250, 306, 324f., 374f.,
410, 415, 466, 478, 614, 642, 673, 675, 706,
817, 864
Sanhedrin 50, 176, 194, 341, 379, 448, 526,
850, 880
Sapphira 846
Sarah 431, 627 f., 847
Sarapis 520
Sarcasm 432
Sardis 830
Satan 74, 136, 191, 193, 196, 198, 205, 208-
210, 214, 221, 229, 314, 368, 370, 381-383,
401, 432, 458, 460, 471, 473f., 495, 510,
560 f., 574 f., 609 f., 618, 631, 633, 642, 665,
674, 677, 692, 701 f., 706, 708, 733, 781, 795,
809, 811, 858, 877, 901
Satanic powers 74, 165
Satire 430, 432
Satisfaction 48, 115, 264, 272, 351, 817
Satisfy 123, 237, 266 f., 274
Satrapy 234
Saturn 558
Saul 116, 306, 374, 554
Saul of Tarsus 320
Save 60, 86, 122, 194, 228, 278, 280, 312f.,
315, 329, 331 f., 354, 387, 446, 510, 610, 799,
818, 838-840
Save up 829-836
Saving act 56, 78, 87, 119, 129, 149, 202, 241,
300, 388, 396, 509, 627, 665 f., 671, 717
Saving event 112, 276
Saving grace 78
Saving power 78, 492, 627, 806
Saving presence 86
Saving purpose 78, 119, 353, 408
Saving work 42, 78 f., 141, 158, 193, 196, 208,
354, 357, 367, 413, 419, 516, 544, 653, 655,
665, 670, 717
Saviour 78, 82, 108, 167, 215, 245, 265, 307,
332, 335, 337, 343, 349, 358, 363, 366 f., 404,
518, 584, 645, 804, 922
Saviour-king 111, 330, 341
Say 281, 443, 488
Saying 109, 155, 385, 751, 757, 929
Sayings of Jesus 449
Scabby 464
Scales of Kronos
Scaly 464
Scandal 705-710
Scanty 821
Scapegoat 151
Scar 288, 573
Scatter 31-35, 38, 226, 412 f.
Scattered 380, 854
Sceptical 101
Scepticism 100, 341, 384, 431
Sceptre 98
Sceva 519
Schism 618
School 311, 445
School of Hillel 43, 811
School of Shammai 43, 811
Schweitzer and Eschatology 902 f.
Scoff 432, 843
Scoffer 58, 479
Scold 144
Scorn 49, 356, 394, 399, 429, 431-433, 448
Scornful 149, 417, 433
Scorpio 688
Scorpion 29
Scratch 288
Scribes 32, 101, 147, 170, 174, 177, 222, 227,
262, 281, 327 f., 368, 399, 467, 469, 584, 610,
640 f., 714 f., 730, 799, 801, 811, 830, 834
Script 308 f.
Scripture 114, 126, 186, 219, 227 f., 235, 291,
307, 312-315, 327, 342, 380, 432, 443 f., 448,
505, 624, 641, 665f., 681, 714f., 774, 811,
834, 927
Scroll 189, 727
Scruples 223, 402
Scrupulosity 150, 385
Scrutiny 370
Scythians 127, 679
Scythopolis 592
Sea 130, 187, 197, 281, 421, 615, 623, 625,
642, 657, 661, 691, 840
Sea-dragon 200
Seal 40, 146, 158, 269, 411, 691, 695, 700, 727
Sealed book 194
Search 182 f., 386, 424, 834
Search for 805-807
Season 193, 270, 375, 688, 921
Seasoning 21]
Seat 245, 325, 369, 388, 611-615
Seat of government 601
Seat of honour 612
232
GENERAL INDEX
Seba 367
Second coming (— Parousia) 38, 461, 713,
886-935
Second death 304, 701
Second sight 559
Secondary authority 446
Secret 71, 75, 182, 211 f., 214-220, 255, 279,
317, 353, 365, 379, 397, 401, 408, 469, 488,
493, 560, 652, 727, 753, 758, 762, 794, 835,
899, 903
Sect 676
Sectarian 438
Secular 230, 239 f., 273, 334, 373, 376, 670
Secular time 891
Secure 203, 244, 295
Security (—> False security)
843 f., 846
Sedative 28
Seduce 458, 582, 629
Seductive 460 —
See 45, 77, 110, 134, 154, 173, 176, 180, 183,
211 f., 214 f., 230, 243 f., 270, 279, 282, 285,
289, 358, 379, 387, 393, 395, 403 f., 488, 494,
496, 633, 710, 857
Seed 35, 104, 131 f., 177, 180, 211, 364, 514,
586, 662, 843, 861, 899
Seek 116, 127, 164, 257, 271, 275, 327, 351,
355, 361, 381, 386 f., 806, 832, 857
Seek help 201
Seem 286
Seemly 668 f.
Seer 193, 625, 633
Select 362
Selection 362
Seleucids 234, 810, 849
Self 49, 394, 566, 818, 919
Self-abasement 202, 263, 270, 618
Self-assertion 202
Self-assurance 416
Self-centred 184, 253, 815 f.
Self-chosen 825
Self-condemned 363, 365
Self-confidence 430, 844
Self-consciousness 308 f., 312, 341 f., 567
Self-consecration 225
Self-contrived 843
Self-deception 470
Self-denial 117, 386
Self-deprecating 305
Self-designation 109, 228, 237, 310, 312, 378
Self-determination 121
Self-discipline 102 f.
Self-disclosure 79
Self-effacing 259, 428 f.
Self-emptying 262, 828, 844
Self-evident 447, 709
Self-exaltation 201, 202
Self-examination 392
Self-expression 256
Self-governing 788
Self-gratification 202
Self-humbling 262
Self-humiliation 262 f.
Self-identification 83, 823
Self-immolation 307
149, 239, 297, 777,
1009
GENERAL INDEX
Self-important 399 |
Self-indulgence 275, 712
Self-interest 568
Self-irony 432
Self-justification 448
Self-knowledge 402, 404
Self-love 659
Self-manifestation 49]
Self-offering 230, 535 f.
Self-perfection 103
Self-possession 539
Self-praise 844
Self-presentation 278
Self-reformation 407
Self-reproachful 431
Self-revealing 197
Self-revelation 45, 80, 229, 281, 343, 395, 442,
633
Self-righteous 106, 416, 434, 443
Self-righteousness 155, 170, 267, 584
Self-sacrifice 339, 546, 563, 615, 673, 833
Self-salvation 394
Self-satisfaction 404, 443
Self-security 435
Self-sufficiency 295, 657, 820
Self-surrender 532 f., 864
Self-trust 815
Self-understanding 342
Selfish 32, 221, 518, 550, 844
Selfless 563
Sell 32, 63, 832, 846
Semblance 287
Semi-political 307
Semite 898
Semitic 920
Semitism 403, 427, 526, 530, 680, 727, 880
Send 79, 152, 351, 404f., 426, 610, 632, 819
Seneca 239, 542, 792
Sennacherib 679
Sensationalism 168
Sense 1!72f., 175 f., 327, 390-392, 395, 416,
434, 568, 591
Sensible 169, 616-620
Sensual 138, 265, 539
Sentence 139, 143, 178, 309, 368, 370, 419, 434
505
Sentiment 435
Sentinel 136
Separate 83, 199f., 267, 273, 282, 307, 359,
362-367, 413, 442, 720, 809 f.
Separation 54, 197, 224, 226, 307, 309-312,
316 f., 362, 393, 517, 629, 707, 709, 715, 742,
813, 825
Septuagint 125, 219, 338, 690, 697
Sequence 387
Seraph 173, 212
Sergius Paulus 557
Seriousness 95, 276
Sermon on the Mount 133, 177, 281, 443, 449,
469, 543 f., 580, 825, 831 f., 871 f., 893
Sermon on the Plain 598
Serpent 29, 132, 458, 619, 638, 642, 701
Serpent-charming 554
Servant 129, 136, 152, 164, 167, 192, 249, 262,
305, 307, 313, 328, 336, 364, 382, 411, 413,
1010
467, 508 f., 511, 596, 600, 610, 642, 667, 833,
838, 866, 888, 917
Servant of God 165, 336, 411, 540, 731, 768
816, 854
Servant of the Lord 49, 165, 410, 492
Servant of Yahweh 368
Servant Songs 337
Serve 63, 77, 83, 94, 147, 152, 160, 164, 238,
253, 256, 262, 266, 282, 284, 286, 319, 349,
427, 429, 447, 466, 518, 671, 675, 715, 809,
816, 823, 840, 847, 876, 885
Service 50f., 68, 92, 121, 152, 164, 174, 203,
211, 222, 229, 233, 242, 255, 263, 269-271,
285, 291, 293, 305, 327-329, 339, 399, 403,
429, 451, 475, 517, 547, 559, 566, 611, 615,
650, 652, 655, 736, 765, 774
Serviceable 98
Servile 259
Servility 859
Session 147, 369
Set apart 232
Set free 91, 116, 150
Set mind on 616-620
Set prayers 869
Set upon 150
Seth 556
Setting 327
Settle 247-251, 305, 365
Settled 711
Settlement 131, 296, 333, 373
Seven 114, 550, 625, 651, 667, 685, 687 f.,
690-692, 693, 697 f., 700, 756, 769, 784, 827,
931
Seven churches 487, 685, 691
Seven golden lampstands 487
Seven years 317
Seven-branched lampstand 485, 487
Sevenfold 690
Seventy 638, 641, 690, 696f., 754, 769, 784,
920
Sever 120
Severe 360 f.
Severity 270
Sexes 160, 660
Sexual 161, 260, 350, 540 f., 599
Sexual deviations 660
Sexual offences 579
Sexual relations 224, 349f., 392, 395, 398,
570, 575—580, 638, 659 f., 668, 722, 923
Shade 284
Shades 206, 555
Shadow 194, 275, 288, 291, 447, 451, 475, 717,
804
Shadowy existence 206
Shadrach 628
Shaft 97
Shake the head 159
Shalmaneser I 679
Sham 632
Shame 48 f., 51, 91, 157, 159, 217, 262, 359,
361, 385, 417, 442, 478, 709, 737
Shameful 50, 182, 260, 291, 368
Shameless 356
Shamma 311, 579, 811
Shammaites 309
Shamshi-Adad I 679
Shape 95, 159, 290, 424, 501
Share 40, 42, 46, 64, 83, 101, 120, 151, 163,
165, 230, 262, 271 f., 276f., 287, 295-298,
300, 302, 303 f., 311, 314 f., 328, 350, 358, 360,
380, 405 f., 475, 498, 520, 532, 534, 777, 787,
841, 846, 888
Share rule 372-389
Shared life 579
Sharpen 288, 573
Shave 417
Shaven 157, 160
Shealtiel 691
Shearer 410
Sheaves 737
Sheba 381, 680
Shechem 67, 318, 591, 796
Shechemites 521
Shed 525
Shedding of blood 853-855
Sheep 31, 34, 148, 177, 280, 314, 358, 386,
410-414, 458 f., 461, 543, 599, 695, 728, 839
Sheepfold 586
Sheet 95, 689
Shekel (Tyrian) 851
Shekel of Israel 308, 852
Shekinah 628, 899
Shem 591
Shema_ 73, 173 f., 177, 313, 721, 864, 867
Sheol 29, 32, 351 f., 432, 491, 924
Shepherd 31, 34, 101, 104, 176, 279f., 305,
332, 386, 412 f., 458-461, 599, 624, 652, 696,
721, 723, 728, 757, 928
Shepherd of Hermas 219
Shepherd-gods 104
Shield 237, 297, 865
Shine 46, 289 f., 484-496
Shining 96, 484-486, 490-496
Ship 212, 244
Shoot 333, 340
Short 692
Short-lived 211
Shortsighted 153
Shout 144, 352, 433, 855, 862, 924
Show mercy 594-598
Show pity 594-598
Showbread 293
Shrewd 169, 254
Shrine 67, 74, 85, 199, 224, 235, 635
Shrink 91, 775, 818
Shunammitess 225
Shut 31, 154, 193, 727, 729-734
Sibyl 744
Sick 386, 543, 813
Sick bed 586
Sickness 163-172, 320, 362, 419, 478, 855,
875, 893
Side of boat 303
Sidon 226, 767, 789, 848
Sift 362, 364
Sigh 215, 420, 423 f., 862, 865, 884
Sight 211, 218, 392
Sign 116, 133, 149-151, 157, 194, 259, 261,
272, 286, 307, 310 f., 315, 338, 350-352, 381,
GENERAL INDEX
385, 396, 422, 435, 546, 569, 572, 574, 584,
620-635, 708 f., 741, 858, 892, 901, 912, 921
Significance 87, 109, 147, 149, 161, 268, 276,
281, 327, 330, 333, 337, 353, 379, 443 f., 462,
621, 683-702, 749, 910, 916
Significant 307, 332, 340
Signs and wonders 626f.
Silas 136, 302, 321, 550
Silence 312, 393, 446, 867, 878, 880
Silver 28, 44, 95-98, 225, 235, 836, 844
Silver age 96
Silversmith 623
Simeon 245, 317, 624
Similar 286, 500-508, 744
Simile 211, 279, 287, 435, 743-760
Similitude 743-760
Simon 321, 464, 817
Simon of Cyrene 740
Simon the Just 652
Simon Magus 28, 152, 302, 557 f., 768, 847
Simon, Rabbi 672
Simonians 557
Simple 458
Simpleton 412
Simplicity 868
Sin 28, 42, 51, 71 f., 78, 80, 83, 86, 92-94,
101-103, 105 f., 117-120, 131, 137, 141, 143,
145, 151, 155 f., 166, 168-170, 182, 197, 204,
212, 214f., 225, 237f., 251, 258, 261, 263,
269 f., 282, 285-289, 302 f., 332, 349 f., 366,
368, 380, 385f., 398, 400f., 403f., 406f.,
415, 422, 445-449, 457, 459 f., 470, 478, 483,
488-490, 494, 504f., 519, 523, 533, 536,
565 f., 579, 588, 605f., 617f., 653, 655,
667 f., 675, 677, 699, 705, 707-710, 714, 716-
718, 723, 737, 761, 767, 769 f., 787, 791, 799 f.,
860, 865, 867 f., 875, 879
Sin-offering 293, 339
Sinai 48, 186, 190, 212, 215, 281, 313, 315 f.,
452, 485, 521, 533, 635, 637, 640, 642, 670 f.,
755, 784 f., 854, 871 f.
Sincerity 463, 676, 716
Sinful 78, 145, 179, 187, 215, 226, 859, 893,
918
Sinfulness 36, 565
Sing 353 f., 416 f., 436, 862, 874
Singer 578
Single 87, 487
Sinlessness 411, 449, 504, 892
Sinner 94, 101, 106, 120, 141, 152, 209, 214,
271 f., 276, 282, 332, 358, 386, 388, 411, 422,
432, 470, 499, 523, 543, 545 f., 549, 566, 584,
604, 630, 660, 669, 790, 798, 813, 882, 884,
888
Sip 270
Sirach 331, 622
Sister 250, 549
Sit 123, 147, 276, 363, 370, 380, 612, 917
Site 317
Situation 367, 392, 659
Sitz im Leben 905
Six 692
Sixth hour 685
Size 800 :
Skilful 146
1011
GENERAL INDEX
Skill 40
Skin 464-466
Skinflint 211
Sky 184, 187 f.
Slain 32, 147, 411
Slander 270, 449, 469, 653
Slaughter 234f., 410, 674, 893
Slave 49-51, 57, 143, 183, 250, 254, 258, 262,
298, 393, 412, 434, 445, 453, 467, 499, 508-
511, 513, 517, 534, 562, 564, 572f., 652f.,
735, 775, 816 f., 828, 841, 859
Slave-girl 581
Slave-owner 438
Slavery 188, 226, 394, 424, 452, 521, 772
Slavish outlook 259
Slay 234
Sleep 55, 486, 777, 922, 924 f., 927
Sleepless 134, 137
Slogan 611, 620
Small 259, 424-429, 443, 675, 709
Smaller 427-429, 675
Smear 334, 410
Smell 211
Smelting 97, 628
Smelting crucible 98
Smile 431
Smite 159
Smith 689
Smitten 414
Smoke 293 f., 484
Smyrna 692 f., 826, 844
Snake 27, 586
snare 705, 707
Snatch 34
Sneer 430
Snow 189, 830
Soak 274
Sober 137, 169, 458, 925
Social 93, 259, 263, 777, 822
Social class 303
Social life 310, 364, 436, 820-829
Social standing 305
Society 50, 90, 160-162, 263, 383, 415, 430,
462 f., 466, 497, 569, 700, 810, 820-829, 840
Sociological 310 |
Socrates 92, 103, 430, 439, 666, 719
Socrates (church historian) 507
Sodom 216, 329, 366, 682, 767
Sodomite 569-571
Sodomy 142
Soft 98
Soil 197, 297
Sojourner 636, 737, 788-790, 803
Soldier 222, 290, 295, 299, 378 f., 572,
737, 816
Solemn 149, 234
Solicit 587
Solidarity 243, 827, 920
Solitude 724
Solomon 248, 306, 329, 336, 349, 381, 428,
556, 576, 680, 745, 848
Solomon’s portico 236
Solon 657, 690, 820
Solution 314
Son 42, 58, 81, 84, 119, 147, 170, 179, 183,
1012
689,
185 f., 194, 200, 202, 216, 231, 249, 289, 301-
303, 305, 307, 313, 318, 326, 336, 341, 343,
354, 356, 358, 363, 374, 403-405, 411, 428,
437, 447 f., 450, 500, 506 f., 543, 546, 548 f.,
566, 571, 588, 595, 604, 609 f., 625, 630, 635,
642, 653 f., 656, 717, 720, 781, 824, 828, 856,
884, 904, 917, 928 f.
Son of darkness 71, 261, 298, 312, 314, 492,
565, 696, 779, 893
Son of David 147, 341, 376, 378, 515, 595, 614
Son of God 79 f., 82, 87, 111 f., 178, 203, 213,
228 f., 231, 267, 270, 289, 313, 337, 343, 368,
370, 374, 376, 378, 380, 403, 449, 458, 503,
505, 514, 519, 544, 598, 607, 694, 706, 718,
724, 800, 835, 873, 877, 900, 928 f.
Son of God’s good pleasure 818
Son of Israel 305, 314, 791
Son of Jerusalem 324
Son of Joseph 333
Son of the kingdom 382, 385
Son of lies 339
Son of light 71f., 298, 353, 364, 492-494,
565, 619, 696, 708, 779, 793, 837, 893, 925
Son of man 32, 37f., 54, 80, 112, 146f., 185,
190, 194f., 202, 204, 216, 252, 269, 271, 276,
282, 313, 337, 339, 351, 364, 369, 376, 380,
382, 387, 433, 482, 503, 514, 527,535, 604,
607, 610, 614, 630, 652, 680, 682, 709, 731,
739, 782, 808, 835, 888, 894, 901, 905, 910-
912, 916 f., 928 f.
Son of Mary 333
Son of Noah 309
Son of the resurrection 920
Son of a star 308, 339, 495
Son of this world 619, 837
Son of truth 71, 471
Son of wickedness 100, 105
Song 58, 191, 233, 260 f., 353, 380, 418, 724,
819, 864, 874, 885
Song of Deborah 796
Song of the Lamb 625
Song of Moses 625, 638
Sonship 245, 445, 653, 775
Soothsayer 234, 554
Soothsaying 142
Sophism 439, 648, 656, 719
Sophocles 239
Sorcerer 552-562
Sorceress 555
Sorcery 286, 552-562, 795
Sore 466
Sorrow 149, 236, 360f.,
594, 632, 865
Sort 501
Sosthenes 369
Soteriological
844, 889, 903
Soteriology 388, 397
Soul 40, 99, 103, 125, 137, 157, 181 f., 191,
197, 202, 207 f., 225, 241, 249, 261, 266, 288,
391, 393 f., 406, 458, 476 f., 480, 483 f., 525,
564 f. 567-569, 571, 584, 590, 648, 658, 830,
838 f., 854, 919, 926
Sound 60, 102, 169-172, 361, 487
Sound mind 169
416-424, 475, 522,
192, 202, 300, 380, 504, 827,
Soundness 102
Sour 461
Source 138, 147, 157 f., 160, 287, 290, 341, 357
359, 656
Southern kingdom 305 f., 319, 325
Souvenir 85
Sovereign 70, 74, 77, 185, 203, 240, 262, 335,
366, 372, 411, 413, 601-616, 624, 650, 819,
877
Sovereignty 145, 160, 199f., 233, 274, 319,
327, 368, 426, 587, 819, 859
Sow 34, 129, 177, 359, 826
Sower 714, 773, 834 .
Space 70, 198, 397, 404, 424, 497, 658
Spain 826
Span of life 428
Spare 411, 660
Sparta 500
Spatial 184f., 195, 197-199, 210, 459
Speak 72, 74, 109, 129, 154, 363
Speak against 450
Speek allegorically 743-756
Speak boldly 734-737
Speak ill 364, 450
Speak in tongues 97, 121, 222, 253, 739-742,
785 f., 873, 883 f.
Speak openly 734-737
Speak out 734-737
Speak well 416
Speaker 85, 369, 434
Species 158, 501, 657
Specific 863, 867
Specify 648
Spectacle 291, 434
Speculation 191, 314, 393, 397, 402, 405,
644 f., 921
Speculative 392, 396
Speech 49, 78, 108 f., 157, 260, 290, 591, 643,
659, 899
Speech for the defence 594
Spell 115, 552, 560
Sphere 303
Spices 295
Spill 854
Spirit 42, 58, 66, 71, 75f., 78, 83, 100, 106,
117, 121, 129, 136, 151, 155, 156, 162, 169,
178, 182 f., 185 f., 189, 199, 213 f., 218, 260 f.,
265, 275, 277, 282 f., 311 f., 314, 343, 350,
353, 364, 368, 382, 398, 402 f., 418, 424, 439,
446 f., 452, 481, 491, 499, 513, 519, 545 f.,
558, 561, 565 f., 571, 602, 611, 615, 617, 619,
625, 641, 670-672, 675, 712, 715, 719, 721,
728, 738, 762, 771, 775, 778, 781, 784-787,
806, 816, 828, 831, 839, 854 f., 873, 878, 882-
884, 898 f., 916, 919, 921, 927-929
Spirit, Holy 28, 39f., 48, 79, 84, 86f., 122,
127, 143, 152, 193 f., 227-231, 242f., 245,
249, 259, 268, 270, 300, 328, 359 f., 388, 424,
445, 448, 473, 507, 516, 557, 596 f., 603-605,
632 f., 645, 653 f., 718, 722 f., 736, 739 f.,
768, 774, 783, 794, 817, 838, 842, 847, 855,
857, 868, 874, 881, 893, 911, 918, 921
Spirit of divination 552-562
Spirit of God 122, 150, 168, 218, 223, 250
Spirit of holiness 79
GENERAL INDEX
Spirit of light 105
Spirits 69, 121, 184, 207, 209, 298, 391, 417,
458, 553 f., 691, 707, 828
Spirits in prison 136, 208
Spiritual 121, 180-182, 187, 189, 193, 196,
230, 249, 264-267, 276, 316, 325, 327f.,
oFe 351, 355, 364, 398, 438, 539, 619, 842,
6
Spiritual body 567, 924
Spiritual building 250 f.
Spiritual fornication 587
Spiritual gifts 44, 79, 115-124, 169, 255, 360,
391, 828, 868
Spiritual house 230, 249
Spiritual inheritance 295
Spiritual Israel 316
Spiritual life 446
Spiritual man 75
Spiritual marriage 581, 588
Spiritual milk 270
Spiritual priesthood 249
Spiritual reality 249
Spiritual riches 299
Spiritual sacrifices 249
Spiritual stones 249
Spiritualist 559 |
Spirituality 884
Spiritualization 67, 339
Spittle 167 f.
Splendour 46, 289, 339, 425 f., 484-486, 779
Split 306
Spoil 99, 182, 590, 693 f.
Spontaneous 607, 694
Sport 710
Spot 411
Spotless 290
Spouse 59, 798
Spread 34, 334-343, 360
Sprinkle 853-855
Sprout 211
Spur on 244
Spurious 338
Spurn 817
Spy 142, 318, 469
Squander 34
Square number 700
Stability 374
Staff 642
Stage 748
Stagger 458
Stamp 75, 284, 288 f., 573 f., 657
Stand 156, 369, 773, 861, 869
Stand by 310
Stand firm 517, 764
Stand in awe 224
Stand in line 451-453
Standard 267, 361, 366, 374, 390, 399, 415,
427, 452, 499
Standing 123, 144, 148, 182, 259, 426, 497,
821, 839
Star 27, 29, 46, 69, 188 f., 192, 196, 198, 270,
313, 337, 459, 488, 490 f., 495 f., 555, 557 f,,
622, 649, 691, 695, 916
Start 327 ©
Statrle 358
1013
GENERAL INDEX
State 49, 234, 253, 306, 309, 373, 375, 420,
439, 456, 511, 657, 737, 775, 791, 796, 801-
804, 922
Stateless 306
Statement 407
Stater 851
Statue 27, 158, 287
Stature 428 f., 588
Status 160f., 170, 218, 262, 334, 338, 342,
351 f., 373, 386, 427, 439, 442, 563, 619
Statute 363, 441
Stay 772
Steadfast 117, 611, 764-776
Steadfast love 227
Steadfastness 764-776, 858
Steal 871]
Steep 349
Step 369
Stephen 119, 155, 178, 318, 418, 421, 437, 450,
636, 641, 729
Stephanas 899
Steppes 305
Steward 123, 247-265, 619, 714
Stewardship 832
Stick to 348-350
Stiffnecked 153
Stigma 835
Stigmata 572 f.
Still 240, 396, 630 f.
Sting 29
Stipulation 320
Stir 136, 366
Stoic 49, S51, 128, 141, 188, 265, 289, 396,
406 f., 419, 439, 449, 459, 476f., 481, 497,
565, 648, 651, 657f., 660 f., 719, 723, 765,
769, 776, 783, 807, 836, 841, 919
Stoicism 140
Stolen 858
Stomach 266
Stone 29, 129, 217, 231, 249, 288, 296, 418,
450, 582, 622 f., 705 f., 708 f., 711, 800
Stone of offence 705
Store 134, 318
Store up 829-836
Storehouse 189, 191, 829-836
Storeroom 829-836
Stores 32
Storm 623, 630f.
Story 643-647
Straight 144
Strabo 679
Straits 29, 807-809
Strange 367, 739-742
Stranger 34, 251, 326, 404, 541, 788-790,
803
Strategy 329
Stray 413, 710
Stream 232
Strength 78, 98f., 148, 177, 180, 202, 215,
240, 244 f., 263, 273, 360, 540, 601-616, 767,
806, 817
Strengthen 183, 357, 601-616
Stress 663, 748
Stretch out 150, 200 f., 239
Strew 157
1014
Strictness 351
Stride 369
Strife 263, 282 f., 808, 911
Strike 157, 220, 413, 416, 417-419, 451, 705-
707
Stripes 696
Strive 103, 230, 244f., 266, 305, 426, 617,
806, 814-817
Strong 102, 155, 169f., 244, 269, 517, 601-
616, 657, 764, 767 f., 815
Strong-box 830
Stronger 382
Strongest 435
Stronghold 324
Structure 249, 288, 427
Struggle 65, 165, 273, 307 f., 311
Stubborn 97, 153, 312
Study 381, 442
Stumble 429, 705-707
Stumbling-block 705-710
Stump 333
Stunt 222
Stupid 412
Stupify 154
Style 288
Subdue 777
Subdued 260
Subject 110, 139, 142, 162, 244, 263, 265, 286,
298, 377, 399, 418, 609, 790
Subjection 51, 374
Subjective 239-241, 243, 352, 355, 357
Subjugate 510-520
Sublimation 336
Sublime 92-94
Submission 179, 218, 240, 244, 343, 615, 764,
859, 864, 888
Submissive 262
Submit 180, 203, 261, 270, 363, 378
Subordinate 160, 372, 404
Subordination 80, 84, 162
Suborn 686
Subsistence 845-847
Substance 243, 284, 289, 452, 497, 845-847
Substantial 291
Substantiate 321
Substitute 42, 199
Substitutionary death 123, 530, 532f., 535 f.
Subterfuge 317, 630
Subterranean 205
Subversive 645
Subvert 370
Succeed 452
Success 119, 146, 237, 478, 778
Succession 152, 389, 428, 433
Successor 151, 331, 374
Succumb 285, 307
Sudden 382, 384, 894, 900, 910
Suffer 29, 122, 139, 258, 267, 289, 307, 327,
339, 358, 370, 806, 809, 835
Suffering 48, 51, 63, 75, 104, 112, 123, 149,
179, 199, 203 f., 228, 231, 245, 276, 291, 303,
310, 313 f., 340, 354, 359-361, 363, 368, 403,
410 f., 413, 416 f., 419-421, 423, 434, 498,
501, 510, 540, 544, 619, 622, 631, 640-642,
654, 665, 669, 674 f., 688, 708, 713, 765, 771,
Suffering continued
774, 776, 782, 808, 825, 840, 844, 883, 888,
911, 924
Suffice 342, 820
Sufficiency 429
Sufficient 162, 238, 341
Suggestion 166
Suicide 659
Suitable 102, 105, 668 f.
Sum 157
Sum up 156f., 163
Summer 382
Summon 354, 358, 405
Sumptuous 484-486
Sun 128, 191 f., 265, 289 f., 484, 487 f., 491,
493, 495 f., 622, 628, 690 f., 695, 889, 916
Sun god 200
Sundial 451, 628
Sunlight 490
Superabundance 119
Superfluous 487
Superior 157, 160, 164, 166, 196, 267, 401,
433, 442, 510, 513, 533, 856, 859 f., 862, 877
Superiority 158, 394, 431, 435, 447, 612, 694,
824
Supernatural 166, 189, 268, 274, 326, 335,
364, 386, 477, 491, 556, 601, 603, 607
Supernova 558
Superscription 289
Supersede 447
Superstition 85, 560
Superstitious 85
Supervise 327, 445
Supervisor 191
Supper 520-538
Supper, Great 358
Supper of God 33
Supplant 431
Suppliant 74, 856-860, 863
Supplication 91, 117, 149, 768, 855 f., 860-
863, 868
Supply 117
Support 99, 146, 237, 263, 272, 311, 446, 448,
460, 834, 837
Suppose 44, 239
Supreme 426
Sure 243
Surety 40
Surname 648-656
Surplus 130
Surprise 382, 432, 621-626
Surrender 146, 198, 394, 405
Surround with light 484-486
Survive 83, 274, 309, 383, 412, 772
Susceptibility 675
Sustain 101, 162, 866
Sustainer 74, 76
Sustenance 264
Swallow 274
Swear 159, 301, 614, 650
Sweet 211, 273, 293
Swell 462
Swim 412
Swollen 465
Sword 98, 189, 367, 686, 795
GENERAL INDEX
Syllable 452
Symbol 37, 96-98, 148 f., 151, 214, 270, 276,
294, 372, 376, 426, 482, 485, 495, 504, 539,
573 f., 580, 582, 585, 597, 607, 612, 626, 630,
632, 637, 648 f., 655, 679, 685-703, 711 f.,
714, 738, 745 f., 804, 909, 916-918
Symbolize 272 f., 275, 415
Symmachus 707
Symmetry 102
Sympathize 123, 361, 594
Sympathy 117, 424, 598-600
Synagogue 90, 118, 126, 155, 158-161, 174,
229, 308, 311, 316, 333, 368, 437, 451, 590
641, 740, 799, 823, 825, 864 f.
Synagogue of Satan 314, 474
Syncretism 201, 269, 306, 393 f., 453, 515, 895
Synergism 119
Synonym 388
Syria Palaestina 308
Syrian Antioch (— Antioch)
Syrian church 333
Syro-Canaanite 375
Syro-Palestine 320
Syrophoenician 126
System 436
Taberah 638
Tabernacle 96f., 189, 290, 294, 487, 637 f.,
711, 746, 889
Tabitha 596
Table 272 f., 275 f., 516, 520-538, 556
Table of demons 520
Table of the Lord 522
Table-fellowship 521 f.
Tabler 192
Tablets of Destiny 553
Taboo 223 f., 236, 268, 270, 461, 552
Tail 158
Taint 28
Take away 225, 359, 411, 606
Take care 90
Take counsel 744
Take heart 360
Take heed 178
Take a long journey 788-790
Take possession 352
Take sides 617
Take up 238
Take up cross 420
Take a wife 578
Taken up 203
Talent 155, 216, 790, 838
Talmud 125 f., 174, 309, 312, 583
Talmud, Jerusalem or Palestinian 308
Tamar 577
Tame 256, 412, 661, 899
Tammuz 166
Tares 33, 488, 714, 834
Targum 309
Tarnish 28
Tarry 773
Tarsus 320, 328, 804, 848, 895
Tartarus 682
Task 101, 121, 254, 263, 366, 668
1015
GENERAL INDEX
Taste 27, 29, 194, 264-277, 293, 718
Taste death 271, 382
Tattoo 572
Tau 572
Taunt 82, 263, 434
Taurus 688
Tax 40, 62, 311, 326, 329, 624, 667, 728, 737,
813, 830, 850-852, 898
Tax census 320
Tax-collector 272, 386, 417, 523, 549, 790,
795, 851
Tax evasion 222
Teach 113 f., 137, 140, 362, 367f., 445, 453,
461, 472, 485, 608, 669, 719, 758
Teacher 113f., 151 f., 187, 262, 281, 309,
313 f., 358, 406, 430, 432, 440, 444, 535, 595,
669, 715, 721, 731
Teacher of the law 49, 438-451
Teaching 36, 112, 118, 121, 123, 125, 132, 135,
147, 152, 155, 158 f., 164 f., 172, 177, 185,
413, 258, 280, 296, 315 f., 319, 327, 383, 406,
235, 432, 435, 437, 443 f., 462, 467, 550, 610,
623, 629, 640f., 652, 671, 677, 708, 713,
718 f. 736, 743-760, 766, 768, 801, 833 f., 836,
843, 870-873, 879, 883, 889 f., 903-905, 908,
910 f., 914-917, 921, 930
Tear 189, 328
Tears 178, 263, 416, 418, 631, 674
Tease 432
Technical term 363, 368, 457, 727, 743, 764,
766, 783, 854, 862
Tegea 898
Telchines 552
Telemachus 233
Teleological 780
Tell 108, 488, 648
Tell el-Yehudieh 331
Tell Nebi Yunus 680
Tell Quyunjiq 679
Temperament 259
Temple 29 f., 38, 43, 77, 83, 96f., 126, 173 f.,
185, 190, 194, 199, 215, 217, 225f., 228, 230 f.,
232-236, 238, 247-249, 251-253, 256, 284—
286, 290, 294, 296, 311 f., 321, 325-329, 373,
379, 426, 437, 450, 467, 485, 487, 527, 610,
624, 650 f., 698, 711, 713, 727, 730, 732, 742,
754, 763, 768, 793, 795, 799 f., 830, 851, 864,
866, 880, 885, 887, 904, 914-918, 920, 927
Temple, Second 313
Temple of idol 284-286
Temple robber 235
Temple slaves 311
Temple tax 311, 326, 329, 823, 827, 851
Temporal 36, 52, 54, 670, 674, 903
Temporary 205, 207, 213, 220, 717
Tempt 461, 776, 808
Temptation 42, 95, 196, 240, 267, 269, 285,
289, 307, 357, 361, 505, 664, 673, 706, 708,
721, 779, 808, 863, 868, 871, 883 f., 893
Temptation of Jesus 80, 82
Ten 685, 692-694
Ten Commandments (— Decalogue)
Tenant 50, 301, 607
Tend 543
Tendency 401
1016
Tenderhearted 599 f.
Tenderly loving 538-547
Tenet 313
Tension 102, 239 f., 243, 245, 271, 306, 309,
312, 316, 367, 429, 448
Tent 40, 189, 226, 248, 253, 256, 467, 637, 727,
885
Tenth 590-592, 692-694
Teraphim 555
Terminology 403, 405
Terrain 324
Terrible 197, 225, 622, 648
Terrify 287, 621, 642
Territory 303, 319
Terror 53, 91, 202, 205, 266, 426, 621
Tertullian 506, 869
Tertullus 707
Test 140, 182 f., 237, 272, 289, 299, 370, 583,
629, 825, 858
Testify 114, 297, 353
Testimony 64, 73f., 77, 239, 332, 396, 443,
448, 461, 559, 630, 686, 701, 736, 775
Tetradrachma 851
Tetragrammaton 512 f., 652
Tetrarch 550
Text 309, 869
Thank’ 855, 862, 868, 885
Thankful 353, 874
Thankfulness 115, 121, 268, 360
Thanks 115, 121, 261, 353, 421, 654, 666, 806,
866
Thanksgiving 131, 166f., 260, 275, 447, 456,
517, 521, 631, 823, 855 f., 862f., 868, 873-
875, 877 f.
Theatre 233, 458, 467 f.
Thebes 233
Theft 317, 572
Theocentric 260
Theocracy 327
Theocratic 325, 374
Theodotion 707
Theognis 239
Theology 309
Theology, Systematic 908 f.
Theophany 68, 225, 281, 430, 485, 636, 735
Theophilus 86
Theoretical 261, 390, 399, 401
Theory 342
Therapeutae 785
Therapy 164
Thessalonians 131, 179, 774f., 901
Thessalonica 221, 243, 380, 623, 729, 789, 804,
809, 818
Thick 154
Thicken 153
Thief 59, 415, 433, 510, 831, 920, 926
Thin 822
Think 44, 72, 181 f., 239, 259, 393, 399, 616-
620
Think highly 198
Think ill 364
Third 687 f., 739
Third day 63, 687, 893
Third heaven 688, 762
Third hour 685
Thirst 28, 264-277, 349, 478
Thirsty 157, 264-277
Thomas 515
Thorn in the flesh 762
Thoth 554, 556, 635
Thought 94, 158, 179 f., 182, 216, 260, 392 f.
442, 591
Thoughtful 103, 256, 616-620
Thousand 697-703
Thousand years 64, 136, 205, 207, 389, 697,
887
Thrace 849
Threat 63, 86, 160, 209, 262, 267, 307, 320,
351, 357, 413, 440, 530, 706
Three 686 f., 748, 769
Three and a half 686, 688
Three days 252, 351, 680, 687 f., 893
Three years and six months 688
Three-decker universe 645
Threefold 687
Threshing-floor 233, 411
Throat 28
Throne 92, 96, 109, 123, 146f., 186, 191, 201,
369, 376 f., 379, 428, 601-616, 701
Throne of glory 612, 614
Throne of God 45, 74, 193-195, 207, 225,
326, 570, 612-614, 763, 801
Throne of grace 123,614
Throng 653, 801 f.
Throw 382
Throw alongside 743-756
Throw into disorder 621-626
Thucydides 643
Thunder 215, 652f., 691
Thunderbolt 628
Thunderstorm 628
Thutmosis 635
Thwart 220
Thyatira 582, 677f., 775
Tiamat 200, 553
Tiberius 511, 850
Tidings 107-115
Tie 402
Tigris 678
Time 37, 52,56, 61f., 64f., 69f., 106, 108, 132,
136, 158, 187, 205, 255 f., 270, 272, 316, 366,
397, 404, 429, 442, 483, 497, 568, 609, 658,
698, 703, 749, 809, 886, 899, 906 f., 919, 921,
927 f., 931
Time-scale 910, 915
Timeless 590
Times of the Gentiles 37
Times and seasons 75
Timetable 384, 892
Timothy 138, 152, 451, 499, 644, 770, 809
Tin 96
Tithe 211, 466, 590-592, 692-694, 737, 811,
813, 823, 851
Title 105, 126, 147, 231, 233 f., 254, 257, 305,
330, 332, 338, 340f., 343, 372, 375 f., 378,
510 f., 514, 651, 687, 797, 878
Titus 360, 600, 826, 899
Today 63, 155, 242, 892
Together 500
Toil 478, 890
GENERAL INDEX
Token 159, 626, 674
Tolerable 765-767
Tomb 30, 351, 526, 573
Tomorrow 63, 832
Tongue 28, 125, 349, 426, 505, 661, 727, 785,
928
Tongues, Gift of 121, 222, 456, 883
Tongues, Interpretation of 121
Tongues, Speaking in 446, 457
Top 157
Torah 174, 187, 209, 226, 228, 234, 281, 397,
432, 442, 446, 452, 462, 493, 540, 542, 544,
592, 603, 608, 660, 665, 677, 730, 761, 791,
798, 811-813, 824, 848, 865
Torch 484-486, 490
Torch-bearer 578
Torch races 490
Torment 421
Torture 157
Total 683
Totality 53, 59f., 181, 313, 688, 690
Touch 167, 212, 270, 282, 560
Touchstone 314
Tower 157, 189, 369
Town 363
Town clerk 235
Townsmen 822
Trace 291
Trace descent 35
Trade 39, 125, 235 f., 294, 303, 475, 841
Trade-guild 678
Tradition 37, 43, 80, 85, 125, 132 f., 135, 144,
171, 219, 234, 237, 269, 277, 313, 315, 327,
331, 333, 337 f., 340-342, 367, 372, 375, 379,
385 f., 405, 436 f., 439, 453, 526, 530 f., 544,
560, 635, 640, 652 f., 674, 677, 684, 688, 692,
697, 714-716, 718, 748, 780, 784-786, 811-
813, 824, 888, 894, 904, 913 f., 921, 926 f.
Tragedy 318, 430f., 594
Train 122, 391
Training 141
Trait 233, 407
Traitor 531
Trajan 308 f., 316
Trample 329
Trance 176
Tranquility 181
Transcend 337, 873
Transcendence 195, 214, 436, 539, 613 f.
Transcendent 56, 66, 70-72, 74, 78, 376f.,
386, 403, 602, 621, 726, 834
Transcience 714
Transfer 151, 226, 311, 316-318, 325, 335f.,
376, 553
Transfiguration 48, 176, 271, 486, 493, 559,
640, 686, 819
Transfigure 46, 606
Transform 48, 207, 245, 263, 266, 288, 312,
316, 673
Transformation 201, 263, 337, 398, 482, 606,
741, 831, 924
Transgress 123, 141, 144
Transgression 71, 168, 368, 449, 463, 586,
867, 893
Transgressor 445, 463, 479, 660
1017
GENERAL INDEX
Transient 211, 253, 393, 480, 489, 844
Transitional 187
Transitoriness 304, 357, 420, 498, 564 f., 715
Translation 125, 219, 357, 627
Transmission 338, 367 f., 748
Transmit 161, 362
Trap 705, 707 f.
Travail 243, 423
Travel 788
Travelling preachers 401
Tread 358
Treasure 28, 193, 215-217, 381, 386, 714 f.,
795, 829-853
Treasure box 829-836
Treasure-house 191, 829
Treasurer 254, 730
Treasures of darkness
Treasury 43, 475, 821
Treatment 99, 164, 312, 450
Treaty 521, 879
Tree 199, 285, 293, 429, 708, 763
Tree of knowledge 271, 761, 889
Tree of life 280, 304, 482, 761, 763
Tremble 876
Trembling 91, 434, 819
Trent, Council of 219
Trepidation 92
830
Trespass 120, 445
Trial 42, 92, 136, 138 f., 143, 147, 217 f., 263,
ae 365, 369, 378 f., 450, 478, 498, 526, 773,
916
Tribal 247, 305
Tribe 187, 195, 234, 298, 306, 319f., 325,
331, 363, 373, 441, 466, 638, 695 f., 698, 700,
789, 796, 802, 805
Tribulation 37, 136, 353, 360, 478, 692, 709,
771, 773, 781, 805-809, 892, 894 f., 911, 916,
920, 924
Tribune 363, 489
Tribute 40 f., 320
Trick 436, 457-461
Trickery 166, 557
Trinitarian 653
Trinity 84, 508, 516, 687
Trip 705, 708
Tripartite 687
Triumph 136, 341, 400, 431, 433, 490
Triumphal procession 453
Troops 601, 800f., 898
Trouble 221, 395, 621-626, 791, 807, 820
True 59f., 72-78, 82, 94, 103 f., 123, 135,
194f., 218, 221, 227, 229, 235f., 248, 255,
269, 273, 280f., 285, 287-289, 307f., 310,
314-317, 328, 335, 339, 360, 380, 384, 391,
402 f., 406, 408, 413, 426, 442, 450, 460, 469,
475, 477, 481, 488, 503, 607, 642, 645f.,
648 f., 659, 676, 686, 724, 810, 837
Trumpet 173, 691, 711, 784, 866, 922, 924 f.
Trust 71, 76, 82, 91, 94, 149, 237, 239 f., 307,
314, 342 f., 353, 392, 412, 453, 471, 650, 777,
822, 837, 858, 867
Trustee 254
Truth 56, 71, 78, 80, 119, 122, 129, 140, 162,
176, 179, 216, 231 f., 235, 249. 251, 261, 280,
312, 350, 357, 359, 364, 393, 399, 403, 405,
1018
408, 448, 460f., 463, 467, 469f., 472-474,
492, 494, 559, 565, 568, 611, 643, 645, 676,
718, 721, 736, 745 f., 752 f., 757, 765, 793,
811, 817, 858, 873, 878, 927 f.
Truthful 470-474
Turks in Palestine 308
Turmoil 621-626
Turn 154, 326, 357, 839
Turn away 285f.
Turn tables 34
Turn to 882-885
Turning point 59, 398
Twelve 685, 687, 694-696, 697, 787
Twelve Apostles 313, 320f., 365, 385, 563,
599, 614 f., 652, 695, 732, 754, 773, 780, 787,
902
Twelve tribes 187, 306, 365, 615, 639, 652,
695, 700 f., 732, 754
Twilight 324
Twin 653
Two 686, 748
Two ages 928
Two powers 608
Two ways 479, 481
Two witnesses 487, 686, 712, 795
Type 277, 284, 291, 378, 462, 475, 504, 508,
598, 743-756, 700, 825, 835
Typical 276, 312
Typological 269, 316, 332
Typology 277, 447, 570, 692, 756
Tyrannize 606-611
Tyranny 772
Tyrant 291, 372
Tyre 126, 767, 789, 848, 851
Ugarit 67, 305, 324, 375, 644
Ugaritic 190, 495
Ultimate 357, 361
Unable 154, 405
Unacceptable 155
Unapproachable 77, 214, 250, 648
Unassuming 259.
Unauthorized 362, 365
Unbegotten 506
Unbelief 167, 177, 214, 303, 407, 419, 431,
433, 460, 469, 603, 624, 627, 631 f., 708 f.,
717, 794, 868, 880
Unbeliever 58, 217, 283, 304, 329, 366, 402,
457, 581, 654, 741 f., 828, 922
Unblemished 59, 102
Unborn 83
Unbridled 256
Uncertainty 100, 239, 241, 245
Unchangeable 340, 472
Unchastity 368, 581
Uncircumcised 126, 178, 721
Uncircumcision 660
Unclean 136, 206, 225, 268, 275, 434, 465,
631, 792
Uncleanness 205, 225-227
Uncommon 332
Unconcerned 325
Unconditional 105 f., 243, 444
Unconscious 568
Unconverted 566
Uncover 212-214
Undefiled 300
Under 209
Under law 438-451
Underground 97
Underprivileged 415
Understanding 61, 97, 116, 123, 154-156,
160-162, 169, 171, 173 f., 177-179, 183, 197,
279, 339 f., 390-406, 419 f., 427, 434, 463,
476, 493, 567, 616, 621, 729, 777, 813, 923
Undertake 451
Undertone 334
Undervalue 429
Underworld 30, 85, 136, 185, 187f., 197,
205-208, 644, 727, 729, 734
Undeserved 40, 117, 123, 291
Undesired 407
Undrinkable 274
Uneducated 456 f., 625, 813
Unequally yoked 739-742
Unequivocal 351
Unexpected 382
Unfading 300
Unfaithfulness 797 f.
Unfamiliar 670
Unfathomable 197, 205
Unfeigned 468-470
Unforgiving 136, 596, 600, 769 f., 868
Ungodliness 94, 141, 193, 198, 329, 363, 682
Ungodly 95, 139, 141, 155, 181, 202, 207, 251,
388, 431, 491-493, 570, 867
Unheeded 175
Unhistorical 340
Unholiness 71
Unholy 236—-238, 638
Unhonoured 50
Unify 144, 308
Unimportant 259, 822
Unimpressive 434
Uninformed 406
Uninitiated 457, 752
Uninjured 133
Unintelligible 741
Unintentional 406 f.
Union 39, 94, 217, 251, 281, 314, 349 f., 357,
374, 585 f., 858
Unique 70, 73, 76, 79, 87, 169, 280, 289, 313,
332, 338, 340, 396, 426, 444, 632, 664, 716,
721 f., 724 f., 741, 808, 873
Unit 683, 698
Unite 32, 243, 263, 306, 349 f., 355, 520, 653,
828
Unity 64, 135, 158, 163, 186, 192, 253, 261,
308, 313, 325, 328, 350, 404, 426, 439, 539,
598, 618-620, 633, 719-723, 748, 776, 875,
921
Universal 56, 65, 78, 111, 167, 242, 303, 309,
330, 335, 375, 385, 389, 442, 444, 450, 511,
532, 536, 542, 631, 719, 888
Universal law 439
Universal One 67
Universe 78, 158, 163, 189 f., 192, 203, 232,
270, 289, 353, 364, 393 f., 402, 404f., 430,
452, 476, 514, 645, 648, 656, 660, 663, 688,
836
GENERAL INDEX
Unjust 93, 139, 236, 370, 659, 771
Unjust steward 668, 832, 837, 846
Unkempt 162
Unknowable 406
Unknown
Unknown god_ 77, 85, 394, 407, 503
Unlawful 282, 438-451, 586
Unleavened 461-463, 522, 529, 676
Unlettered 456 f.
Unmarried 816
Unmask 474
Unmerciful 366, 594-598, 667
Unmerited 42
Unmistakable 106
Unmitigated 360
Unnatural 570, 660
Unorganized 801
Unpleasant 856
Unprecedented 443, 669
Unprovable 243
Unreceptive 174
Unrecognized 281, 781
Unregenerate 675
Unrepeatable 718
Unrepentant 383, 630, 795
Unrighteous 93, 237, 544, 838, 844
Unrighteousness
Unruly 800
Unsearchable 365 f.
Unselfish 413
Unserviceable 669
Unshakeable 353
Unskilled 456 f.
Unstable 657
Unsteady 457
Unsubstantial 284
Unusable 713
Unutterable 763
Unveil 160, 212-214
Unwashed hands 144
Unwillingness 106, 174
Unwise 320
Unwitting 358, 406
Unworthy 96, 530
Unwritten 436
Upbringing 451
Uphold 287, 289, 366 f.
Uplifted 869
Upper room 320
Upright 94, 98, 144, 261, 395, 475
Uproar 621-626
Upstairs 185
Upwards 187, 198, 617
Uranus 188
Urge 181, 361
Urgency 855, 859
Urim and Thummim 296
Usage 436
Use 149, 270, 296, 364, 400, 447
Useful 98, 102, 281, 412, 434
Usefulness 105
Useless 434
Usurp 80, 877
Utensils 233, 235
Utilize 438
109, 338, 406-408, 669, 746 f.
193, 709, 818, 820, 892
1019
GENERAL INDEX
Utterance 884
Utterly 60
Uzziah 320
Vacillation 458
Vain 41, 285, 517
Valentian gnosticism 645
Valentinus 401
Valerius Gratus 849
Valid 40, 77, 216, 239, 241, 327, 336, 400,
442, 445, 719
Validity 62, 317, 394, 436, 439, 626
Valley floor 197
Valley of Shaveh 590
Valuable 132, 547
Valuation 44
Value 48-50, 96, 100, 104, 131 f., 149, 189,
270, 361 f., 394, 398 f., 420, 428 f., 435, 497—
500, 566, 820 f., 831, 841 f., 844, 862
Value-judgment 362, 424, 438, 719
Vanity 44, 100, 475, 565
Vault 188, 214
Vegetable 210f.
Vegetarian 272
Vegetation 274, 644, 691
Vegetation gods 265
Vehemence , 418
Véil 61, 159-162, 212-214, 293, 328, 379, 522,
637, 641, 669
vot 91, 128, 713
neration 94, 164, 498, 859
Vengeance 56, 58, 157, 230, 690, 770, 893
Venom 27
Ventriloquist 558
Venture 349, 743
Venus 85, 495
Verdict 214, 362-367, 383, 392
Verdigris 27
Very small 427-429
Vespasian 167
Vessel 50 f., 96, 212, 274, 434, 726, 834
Vestments 233
Vex 260, 807
Vibration 653
Vicarious 413, 445, 532
Vice 271, 791, 845 f.,
Vicissitudes 265, 357, 439
Victim 257, 412
Victor 62, 296, 653 f.
Victorious 359
Victory 107, 109, 146, 205, 260, 270, 273,
ar 326, 357, 419, 435, 665, 889, 898, 907,
View 44
Village 29, 363, 803
Vindicate 363 f., 771
Vindication 165, 203, 228, 340, 679, 905, 917
Vine 33, 247, 278, 280 f., 307, 313, 382, 632
Vinegar 28
Vineyard 50, 154, 301, 307, 313, 499, 681, 790
Violate 130, 320, 440, 451, 582
Violence 51, 63, 202, 363, 383, 821, 841
Virgin 87, 212, 577, 584 f., 588, 619
Virgin birth 86
1020
Virtue 49, 51, 61, 92, 94, 192, 259, 261, 290,
355, 437, 484,497, 658 f., 772, 806, 820, 841
Virtuous 261, 477
Visible 46, 72, 82, 106, 147, 190, 192, 379,
394, 398 f., 421, 484, 488-490
Vision 37, 45, 97, 173, 176, 181, 193, 240, 294,
320, 375, 477, 559, 604, 607, 610, 612 f., 622,
624, 673, 691 f., 701 f., 711 f., 728, 762, 785,
888 f., 931
Visionary 56
Visit 358, 875
Visitation 56, 167, 779, 893, 905
Visual 284
Vitality 311
Vizier 376
Vocation 298, 566
Voice 48, 114, 177f., 193, 206, 316, 354, 413,
426, 444, 784, 819, 863, 924, 929
Void 301, 453
Volition 567, 817
Vote 497
Vow 43, 157, 162, 861-864, 867-875
Vulgate 219
Vulture 32f., 115
711, 770, 851
Wages of'sin 120, 715
Wail 416-424
Wait 118, 239 f., 244-246, 385, 585, 682, 772
Wait for 132, 194, 238 f., 244-246, 328
Waiting 243 f., 360
Wake 55, 925
Wakefulness 137
Walk 61, 184, 302, 358, 369, 414 f., 440, 452,
461, 473, 492, 494 f., 517, 668, 706, 718, 771,
777, 795, 804, 815, 817
Walking on water 281, 559, 630
Wall 111, 157, 199, 465, 646, 722, 760, 801,
831
Wander 412, 457-461
Wandering 138, 265
Want 92, 263, 265, 351, 822, 855.
War 146, 167, 226 f., 238, 258, 265, 343, 367,
497, 602, 665, 776 f., 780, 809, 844, 893, 904,
907, 911, 930
Ward 581
Warm 435
Warn 127, 178 f., 263
Warning 37, 136, 174, 180, 230, 244, 260, 262,
277, 286, 290 f., 307, 310, 318, 320, 357f.,
366, 397, 401, 417, 426,.429, 460, 462, 587,
706, 718 f., 721, 823, 832, 901, 917, 921
Warrior 562
Wash_ 75, 159, 228, 230, 303
Wash hands 149 f.
Waste 33, 266
Watch 132-137, 244, 689, 717, 917
Watch over 438, 441
Watchfulness 37, 910, 916
Watchman 111
Water 28f., 80, 150, 153, 157, 188f., 205,
222, 226, 267, 274-277, 278, 281, 284, 349,
452, 497, 583, 630, 658, 691, 854, 881
Water of bitterness 140
Water of conviction 140
Wages
GENERAL INDEX
Water of life 267, 275, 277, 482, 486, 615,
761, 763, 928
Wave offering 461
Waver 244
Waves 212
Wax 128
Way 75, 80, 123 f., 132, 134, 202, 215, 221,
225, 256, 258, 262, 280, 310, 400, 436-438,
444, 458-460, 493, 806
Way of life 436-438
Way of thinking 616-620
Waylay 132
Wayward 407
Weak 117f., 123, 259, 273, 306, 402, 422, 446,
453, 706, 822, 899
Weak brother 611, 815
Weaken 461
Weakness 62f., 116, 121, 136, 166, 171, 206,
414, 428, 432, 434f., 446f., 460, 564, 606,
710, 772, 809, 818, 882-884
Wealth 48 f., 51, 255, 265, 317, 422, 475, 549,
829-853
Wealthy 820, 838
Weapon 97, 495, 815, 830
Weapons of righteousness
Wear 160, 296
Weary 215, 221, 265, 281
Wedding 339, 575-582
Wedding feast 502, 575, 676
Wedding guests 32, 358, 585
Wedding hall 584 f.
Weeds 211, 708
Week 692, 696 f.
‘Weep 267, 328, 357, 416-424, 433, 824 f., 862
Weigh facts 392
Weight 370
Weightier 281
Welcome 244-246, 328, 358, 450, 538 f.
Welfare 320, 564
Well 92, 169-171, 318, 367, 386
Well-being 99, 115, 163, 170, 266, 352, 478,
777, 781
Well-disposed 550, 818
Well-pleasing 857
Werner and Eschatology 903
Wheat 32, 488, 711, 783, 834
While 304
Whisper 554
White 96, 293, 464, 470, 484, 493, 496
White stone 673 f.
Whitewash 334
Whole 60, 62 f., 779
Whole-offering 60
Wholeness 64f., 102, 130, 593, 780-782
Wicked 29, 104, 106, 138, 329, 351, 370, 421,
737, 790
Wickedness 56, 94, 106, 364, 677, 679
Widow 43, 50, 71, 475, 564, 599, 730, 737 f.,
771, 821, 823, 850, 858
Wife 50 f., 139, 213, 221, 307, 317 f., 349, 400,
511, 513, 539, 541, 563 f., 575, 584, 684, 880,
922
Wild 660
Wild olive 710-713
148
Wilderness 206, 218, 228, 412, 458, 460, 541>
636 f., 640, 642, 696, 819, 835, 871 f., 893>
928
Wilderness of Sin 637
Will 83, 102, 166, 181-183, 211, 258, 289,
296, 368, 377, 392, 400, 434, 472, 588, 617,
664, 811, 818 f., 876
Will of God 42, 62, 72-75, 77, 94, 103, 128,
174, 177f., 194, 216, 229-232, 275, 281,
296, 300, 326f., 336, 343, 359, 397, 399f.,
413, 425, 446, 448, 481, 540f., 561, 581,
604, 610, 618, 653 f., 660, 664-667, 673, 675,
721, 775, 811, 815-819, 832, 857 f., 863 f.,
867 f., 871, 875, 882 f., 885, 929
Will, Free 663, 811
Will, Human 811
Willingness 262 f., 350, 600, 826, 847
Wilt 211
Wind 34, 155, 189, 222, 688 f., 785, 830, 865
Window 726
Window of heaven 189, 726
Wine 28 f., 105, 143, 272, 277, 295, 458, 497,
522, 529, 532, 590 f., 630, 632 f., 671, 675 f.,
711, 714, 795, 836, 854
Winepress 33
Wing 212
Winnow 34
Wipe out 411
Wisdom 49, 51, 61, 71, 75, 78, 99, 119 f.,
126 f., 132, 143, 149, 151, 167, 171, 179,
196 f., 216 f., 228, 258, 261, 266, 269 f., 275,
279, 290, 298, 318, 349, 355, 357, 372, 377,
381, 391, 397, 400, 406, 408, 430, 440, 442,
470, 479, 492 f., 538 f., 569, 603, 616, 619 f.,
680 f., 708, 735, 744f., 758, 782, 834 f.,
840 f., 845, 878, 890, 892
Wisdom literature 745
Wise 72, 77, 94, 216, 255f., 320, 354, 377,
431, 557, 764, 798, 832
Wise men 151
Wise saying 756-758
Wish 119, 244, 283, 319, 352, 556, 817-820
Wish-prayer 874 f.
Withdraw 53, 309, 477, 783
Wither 274
Withhold 222 f., 266, 318
Without pity 594-598
Witness 48, 64, 75, 84, 110 f., 129 f., 141, 148,
152, 156, 174, 176, 237, 240, 299, 303, 307,
314, 317, 334, 338, 353, 403, 471 f., 487, 489,
494, 497, 499, 625, 627, 630, 632, 641, 653,
665, 685-688, 700, 712, 736, 799, 809, 868,
903, 911, 921
Wizard 554
Woe 267, 366, 418, 433, 443, 470, 812 f., 824
Wolf 34, 104, 411, 413
Woman 116, 159-162, 213, 217, 235, 287,
302, 307, 309, 329, 339, 349, 431, 444, 446,
562-564, 569-571, 575-590, 649, 661,- 669,
695, 787, 846, 880
Woman taken in adultery 580 |
Womb 226, 229, 353, 358, 599, 726, 729
Wonder 91 f., 194, 350, 620-635, 901
Wonders of the world 85
Wonderful 380, 621-626
1021
GENERAL INDEX
Wonder-working 149
Woo 541
Wood 180, 288, 296
Word 30, 42, 47, 59, 63 f., 71 f., 75, 78 f., 81,
83 f., 100, 104, 109 f., 113 f., 118 f., 129, 135,
148, 152, 154-156, 158, 165, 168, 170 f., 173,
175-178, 180, 185 f., 190, 217, 231, 239f.,
245, 250-252, 256, 267, 269, 281, 287, 302,
317 f., 338, 357 f., 366 f., 383, 386, 399, 404,
426, 434, 436, 447, 449, 452, 470, 474, 476,
480-482, 488, 492 f., 505, 507, 513, 535, 546,
552, 590, 604, 624, 626, 630, 632, 643, 651,
654, 659, 661, 683, 686, 699, 701, 718, 740,
758, 763, 768, 786, 842, 858, 863, 867, 898,
907 f., 915, 918, 920, 922, 926-928
Word of God 33, 43, 113, 134, 150, 174, 177,
181, 183, 266 f., 270, 275, 301, 407
Wordless prayer 883
Words of institution (— Lord’s Supper) 368,
522-536, 896
Work 30, 44, 63, 74, 112, 114, 148, 152, 158,
171, 263, 269, 272, 301, 317, 340, 359, 370,
395 f., 434, 447, 453, 499, 517, 626, 659, 716,
816, 820, 845
Work of Christ (— Christ, Work of)
Work of God 35, 200
Work out 135
Worker 775
Workman 833
Workmanship 83
Works 42, 64, 78, 79, 95, 101 f., 104, 118-120,
122, 134, 177, 214, 217, 267, 279, 319, 365 f.,
384, 426, 444, 450, 699, 866
World 28, 46, 48, 50, 52, 62, 64, 66 f., 70-80,
83, 95, 106, 108 f., 111, 118, 122, 125, 130,
142, 147, 164, 167, 187f., 190, 199 f., 203-
205, 217f., 226, 229, 263, 266-268, 270 f.,
279 f., 287, 290, 301 f., 304, 308, 310, 316,
320, 326-329, 334, 339, 342, 355, 358-360,
364-366, 375-378, 381, 384f., 387 f., 390-
395, 398, 403-405, 407, 411 f., 420, 434f.,
438, 446, 448, 452 f., 457, 477, 493 f., 514,
523, 535, 548 f., 567, 582, 607, 609-611, 613,
615, 619, 625, 629, 641, 645, 650, 656f.,
659-661, 665, 674, 681 f., 691 f., 698, 709 f.,
712, 720 f., 723, 736, 771, 773, 779, 781, 783,
786, 789, 792, 798, 806, 808, 836, 840, 843,
885, 909, 911, 918, 923, 928 f.
World kingdom 693
World to come 311, 632, 643, 789, 791, 798,
830, 834
World-power 56, 227, 607
World reason 67
World-rulers 514
World-soul 719
Worldly 119, 832
Worldly sorrow 420
Wormwood 27-29, 295
Worn out 713
Worry 272
Worship 47f., 53, 68, 73, 77, 85, 90f., 93 f.,
126, 147, 158-162, 164, 174, 181 f., 189, 191,
194, 202, 206, 218, 223 f., 230, 237 f., 247 f.,
263, 267, 284-286, 288, 293 f., 296, 306, 309 f.,
325, 329, 336, 352-354, 356f., 368, 373, 376,
1022
381, 396, 410-412, 437-489, 441, 450, 453,
457, 472, 478, 487, 503, 511, 514, 547, 555,
559, 604, 615, 637, 650, 675, 701, 705, 724,
796, 798, 855-886, 927
Worship of idols 284-286
Worshipper 201, 240, 284-286, 875-879
Worth 48, 96, 306
Worthless 669, 683, 713
Worthy 91, 93, 230, 294, 355, 548, 615, 878
Wound 349, 423, 573, 712
Wrangle 363
Wrap 295
Wrath 28, 33, 58, 64, 72, 76, 94, 139, 155, 168,
193, 209, 215f., 218, 265, 275, 284, 366f.,
400, 412, 421, 540, 544, 565, 570, 625, 633,
663, 715, 764, 767-770, 791, 830, 834, 836,
844, 855, 924
Wreath 556
Wrestle 305, 317, 710
Wretchedness 283, 353, 423, 433, 475
Wrinkled 588
Wrist 150, 415
Write 288
Writing 113, 227, 288, 291, 469, 556
Writings 442, 448
Written 358, 444, 446, 653, 671, 675
Written law 440
Wrong 137, 320f.
Wrongdoer 138
Wrongfully 257
Xenophanes 476
Xenophon 678
Yah 67, 70
Yahweh 67-70, 72, 190, 225f., 239 f., 278 f.,
281, 287, 296-298, 301, 305, 325-327, 331 f.,
363 f., 367, 373-376, 395f., 412, 416, 428,
441, 485, 491, S501f., S511 f., 521, S541 f.,
555f., 572f., 576f. 583-585, 613, 626-629,
633, 635-638, 644, 649-654, 663, 670, 689, 698,
720 f., 737 f., 740, 769, 777 f., 781, 791, 796-
798, 803, 817, 822f., 830, 841, 854, 856,
862 f., 876, 880 f., 890, 892, 899, 925
Yahweh Sabaoth 602
Yardstick 460
Year 308, 317, 696, 866, 887, 892
Year of jubilee 226, 298
Year of release 168
Yearn 123, 538-547
Yeast 461
Yield 256
Yielding 256-259
Yigdal 313
Yohane 557
Yoke 106, 119, 281, 377
Young 428, 584, 674-676
Young woman 87, 584
Younger 319, 427-429, 674-676
Youngest 675
Youth 674-676
Zacchaeus 434, 825, 844, 846
Zadokite 327
Zarephath 730
Zeal 400,
641, 806
Zealots 308, 311, 313, 331, 383, 385, 752, 812
Zealous 246, 448, 450
Zebedee 276, 652
een 178, 294, 337, 353, 358, 624, 712,
72
Zedekiah 336, 754
Zenith 198
Zenobius 757
Zephaniah 679 f.
Zerubbabel 336, 466, 691, 712
GENERAL INDEX
Zeus 85, 124, 151, 188, 224, 232 f., 372 f., 503,
553, 612, 648, 849
Zilpah 317
Zion 190, 306, 324-330, 376, 433, 585, 695,
791, 803, 830, 866
Zionism 306
Zipporah 636f.
Zodiac 509, 688 f.
Zoroaster 556
Zoroastrianism 71
Zu, Myth of 553
1023
Addenda
See THE PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST EDITION OF The New International Dictionary
of New Testament Theology the following general books have been published,
which supplement those listed previously in the bibliographies: R. Banks, Paul’s
Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting, 1980;
C. Bekker, The Apostle Paul, 1980; H. Boers, What is New Testament Theology ?,
1979; F. F. Bruce, Men and Movements in the Primitive Church: Studies in Early
Non-Pauline Christianity, 1980; R. A. Guelich, ed., Unity and Diversity in New
Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of G. E. Ladd, 1978; R. A. Edwards, A
Concordance to Q, 1975; R. A. Edwards, A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy,
Wisdom, 1976; E. Ellis and E. Grdsser, eds., Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift fiir
Werner Georg Kiimmel zum 70. Geburtstag, 1975; F. O. Francis and J. P. Sampley,
Pauline Parallels, 1975; L. Gaston, Horae Synopticae Electronicae: Word Statistics
of the Synoptic Gospels, 1975; D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris, eds., Pauline Studies:
Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on his Seventieth Birthday, 1980; G. F.
Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 1975; G. F.
Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 1978; P. Henry,
New Directions in New Testament Studies, 1979; M. D. Hooker, A Preface to
Paul, 1980; G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia, A Study in Early Christian Theology,
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 35, 1979; G. Hughes, Hebrev's
and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of
Biblical Interpretation, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 36,
1979; E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, 1980; R. P. Martin, Reconciliation:
A Study of Paul’s Theology, 1980; R. P. Martin, The Family and the Fellowship:
New Testament Images of the Church, 1980; R. P. Martin, ““New Testament
Theology: Impasse and Exit”, ExpT 91, 1980 (in two parts); R. Morgenthaler,
Statische Synopse, 1971.
The following works supplement the bibliographies under their respective titles.
Generation
R. R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, Yale Near Eastern
Researches 7, 1977.
Goal
G. McConville, ““God’s ‘Name’ and God’s ‘Glory’ ”’, 7B 30, 1979.
J. Bogart, Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism in the Johannine Community as
Evident in the First Epistle of John, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation
1025
ADDENDA
Series 33, 1977; L. Dey, The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in
Philo and Hebrews, 1975.
God, Gods, Emmanuel
M. Delcor, “‘Les diverses maniéres d’écrire le tetragramme sacré dans les anciens
documents hébraiques”, RHR 147, 1955, 145 ff.; D. Flusser, “‘“Paganism in Pales-
tine’, in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al., eds., The Jewish People in the First Century:
Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and
Institutions, II, 1976, 1065-1100; C. E. L’Heureux, Rank among the Canaanite
Gods: El, Baal, and the Rephaim, Harvard Semitic Monographs 21, 1979; C. H.
Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category
in New Testament Christology, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
40, 1977; G. W. H. Lampe, God as Spirit, The Bampton Lectures 1976, 19717;
B. A. Mastin, “The Imperial Cult and the Ascription of the Title Theos to Jesus
(John xx.28)”, StudEv, TU 112, 1973, 352 ff.; S. A. Matzcak, ed., God in Contem-
porary Thought, Philosophical Questions Series 10, 1977; E. T. Mullen, The Assembly
of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Hebrew Literature, Harvard
Semitic Monographs 24, 1980; K. Rahner, The Trinity, 1974; C. Stead, Divine
Substance, 1977,
Gospel
D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, 1980; R. H. Gundry,
“Recent Investigations into the Literary Genre ‘Gospel’ ”’, in R. N. Longenecker
and M. C. Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament Study, 1974, 97-114;
C. H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels, 1977.
Grace
C. H. Pinnock, ed., Grace Unlimited, 1975; D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as
Miracle Worker, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 1, 1972.
Greek
G. Mussies, ““Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora”, in S. Safrai and M. Stern
et al., eds., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political
History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, II, 1976, 1040-64.
Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying on of Hands
M. Gorgues, A la Droite de Dieu. Résurrection de Jésus et Actualisation de Psaume
110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament, 1978; W. R. G. Loader, “‘Christ at the Right
Hand—Ps. cx.1 in the New Testament’’, NTS 24, 1977-78, 199-217.
Heal
M. T. Kelsey, Healing and Christianity in Ancient Thought and Modern Times,
1973; F. McNutt, Healing, 1974.
Hear
“The Shema and the Shemoneh ‘Esreh’’, in Schiirer, II?, 1979, 454-63.
1026
ADDENDA
Height, Depth, Exalt
J. T. Witney, “‘ ‘Bamoth’ in the Old Testament’’, TB 30, 1979.
House, Build, Manage, Steward . |
S. Safrai, “Home and Family’, in S. Safrai and M. Stern et al., eds., The Jewish
People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural
and Religious Life and Institutions, II, 1976, 728-92.
I Am
L. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Einai as Linking Verb in the New
Testament, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 6, 1972.
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example
G. D. Fee, “II Corinthians vi. 14—vii. 1 and Food Offered to Idols’, NTS 23, 1976-
1977, 140-61; D. Flusser, ‘‘Paganism in Palestine’, in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al.,
eds., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History,
Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, II, 1976, 1065-1100; D. De
Lacey, ‘Image and Incarnation in Pauline Christology: A Search for Origins’,
Tyndale New Testament Lecture 1976, TB 30, 1979.
Israel, Jew, Hebrew, Jacob, Judah
M. Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land from the Persians to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C.-
A.D. 640): A Historical Geography, 19777; M. Avi-Yonah, ed., A History of the
Holy Land, 1969; S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and
Development as a Historian, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 9, 1979;
S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E.:
A Study of Second Temple Judaism, University of Notre Dame Center for the Study
of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 5, 1980; J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller,
eds., Israelite and Judaean History, Old Testament Library, 1977; A. Negev, ed.,
Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 1980; J. Neusner, A History of the
Jews in Babylonia, I-V, Studia Post-Biblica, 1965-70; S. Safrai and M. Stern, eds.
in co-operation with D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik, The Jewish People in the
First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Re-
ligious Life and Institutions, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum,
II, 1976; E. Schtirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, II,
revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, literary editor P. Vermes, 1979; E. M.
Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, From Pompey to Diocletian, Studies in
Judaism in Late Antiquity, 1976; R. De Vaux, The Early History of Israel, 1978.
Jerusalem
R. L. Cohn, The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies, 1980; J. Wilkinson,
Jerusalem as Jesus Knew It: Archaeology as Evidence, 1978.
Jesus Christ, Nazarene, Christian
G. Aulen, Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research, 1976; J. Becker, Messianic
Expectation in the Old Testament, 1980; F. J. van Beeck, Christ Proclaimed:
1027
ADDENDA
Christology as Rhetoric, 1979: L. Boff, Jesus Christ Liberator: A Critical Christology
for Our Time, 1978; J. B. Cobb, Jr., Christ in a Pluralistic Age, 1975; J. Donahue,
Are You the Christ ? The Trial Narratives in the Gospel of Mark, Society for Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 10, 1973; J. G. D. Dunn, Christology in the Making,
1980; M. D. Goulder, ed., Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued, 1979;
E. M. B. Green, ed., The Truth of God Incarnate, 1977; D. R. Griffin, A Process
Christology, 1973; J. Hick, ed., The Myth of God Incarnate, 1977; C. H. Holladay,
Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category in New
Testament Christology, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 40, 1977;
A. J. Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Structure of the Conflict
Stories in the Synoptic Gospels, 1979; H. Johnson, The Humanity of the Saviour,
1962; M. De Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God, Society for
Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 11, 1980; D. Juel, Messiah and Temple:
The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation
Series 31, 1977; W. Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 1976; W. H. Kelber, ed., The Passion
in Mark: Studies on Mark 14-16, 1976; L. Landman, ed., Messianism in the
Talmudic Era, 1979; I. H. Marshall, J Believe in the Historical Jesus, 1977; E. L.
Mascall, Theology and the Gospel of Christ; An Essay in Reorientation, 1977;
B. A. Mastin, ‘“The Imperial Cult and the Ascription of the Title Theos to Jesus
(John xx.28)”, StudEv, TU 112, 1973, 352 ff.; J. P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew:
Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel, 1978; B. F. Meyer, The Aims of
Jesus, 1979; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology, 1977; G. O’Collins, What
are they Saying about Jesus?, 1977; J. O’Neill, ‘““‘The Source of Christology in
Colossians”, NTS 26, 1979-80, 87-100; E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus; An Experiment
in Christology, 1979; E. Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord, 1980;
Schiirer, II?, 488-554; M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 1978; J. Sobrino, Christology
at the Crossroads, 1978; G. Strecker, ed., Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie:
Neutestamentliche Festschrift fiir Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag, 1975;
D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker, Society for Biblical
Literature Dissertation Series 1, 1972.
Jonah
D. J. Wiseman, “‘Jonah’s Nineveh’, Tyndale Biblical Archaeology Lectures 1977,
TB 30, 1979.
King, Kingdom
B. Birch, The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth and Development of 1
Samuel 7-15, Society for Biblical Literature Monograph Series 27, 1976; J. H.
Hayes and J. M. Miller, eds., Israelite and Judaean History, Old Testament Library,
285-488; C. L. Mitton, Your Kingdom Come, 1978; I. C. Rottenberg, The Promise
and the Presence: Toward a Theology of the Kingdom of God, 1980.
Knowledge, Experience, Ignorance
E. H. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 1979; J. M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi
Library in English, 1977.
1028
ADDENDA
Lord, Master
W. W. Graf von Baudissin, Kyrios als Gottesname in Judentum und seine Stelle in
der Religionsgeschichte, ed. O. Eissfeldt, I-IV, 1929; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis
Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1, A Commentary, 19712; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin
of Christology, 1977, 35-46; M. J. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in
Matthew’s Gospel, 1970.
Lord’s Supper
J. A. Emerton, ‘““The Aramaic Underlying to haima mou tés diathékés in Mk.
xiv. 24”, JTS New Series 6, 1955, 238-40; J. A. Emerton, “‘to haima mou tés
diathékés: The Evidence of the Syria Versions’’, JTS New Series 13, 1962, 111-117;
J. A. Emerton, “Mark xiv. 24 and the Targum of the Psalter’, JTS New Series
15, 1964, 1958; H. Lietzmann, Mass and Lord’s Supper, 1979.
Love
J. Piper, “Love Your Enemies’: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and
the Early Christian Paraenesis; A History of the Tradition and Interpretation of its
Uses, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 38, 1979; K. Sakenfeld,
The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, Harvard Semitic Monographs 17, 1978;
L. Schottroff, C. Burchard, R. H. Fuller and M. J. Suggs, Essays on the Love
Commandment, 1978.
Magic, Sorcery, Magi
R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in
Matthew and Luke, 1977; B. Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion and Other
Essays, 1948; J. W. Montgomery, Principalities and Powers: The World of the
Occult, revised and enlarged edition 1975; M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 1978.
Man
G. Carey, I Believe in Man, 1977.
Marriage, Adultery, Bride, Bridegroom
C. M. Carmichael, “Marriage and the Samaritan Woman”, N7S 26, 1979-80, 332-
46; G. Parrinder, Sex in the World’s Religions, 1980.
Lamb, Sheep
J. D. M. Derrett, “Fresh Light on the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin’, NTS 26,
1979-80, 36-60.
Law, Custom, Elements
D. P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum ?, 1980; H. Gilmer, The If-
You Form in Israelite Law, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 15,
1975; S. Pancaro, The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses
and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John, Supplements to NovT 42,
1975; H. Raisanen, “‘Das ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Rom. 3.27) und das ‘Gesetz des
Geistes’ (Rom. 8.2)”, NTS 26, 1979-80, 101-17; Schiirer, II?, 464-87; C. Wright,
“The Israelite Household and the Decalogue’’, TB 30, 1979.
1029
ADDENDA
Miracle, Wonder, Sign
P. J. Achtemeier, ‘““The Lukan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus: A Preliminary
Sketch”, JBL 94, 1975, 547-62, reprinted in C. H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on
Luke-Acts, 1978, 153-67; O. Betz and W. Grimm, Wesen und Wirklichkeit der
Wunder Jesu: Heilungen, Rettungen, Zeichen, Aufleuchtungen, Arbeiten zum
Neuen Testament und Judentum 2, 1977; C. Brown, I Believe in the Miracles of
Jesus, 1981; U. Forell, Wunderbegriffe und logische Analyse: Logisch-philosophische
Analyse von Begriffen und Begriffsbildungen aus der deutschen protestantischen
Theologie des 20. Jahrhunderts, Forschungen zur systematischen und 6kumenischen
Theologie 17, 1967; A Fridrichsen, The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity,
1972; R. W. Funk, ed., Early Christian Miracle Stories, Semeia 11, 1978; R. W.
Funk, “The Form of the New Testament Healing Miracle Story’, Semeia 12,
1978, 57-96; C. H. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: A Critique of the
Use of this Category in New Testament Christology, Society for Biblical Literature
Dissertation Series 40, 1977; B. M. F. van Iersel and A. J. M. Linmans, “The
Storm on the Lake, Mk iv. 35-41 and Mt. viii 18—27 in the Light of Form-Criticism,
‘““Redaktionsgeschichte’”’ and Structural Analysis”, in T. Baarda, A. F. J. Klijn
and W. C. van Unnik, eds., Miscellanea Neotestamentica, Il, Supplements to
NovT 48, 1978, 17-48; M. De Jonge, “Signs and Works in the Fourth Gospel’,
in ibid., 107-26; D.-A. Koch, Die Bedeutung der Wundererzahlungen fiir die
Christologie des Markusevangeliums, BZNW 42, 1975; W. L. Lane, “‘Theios
Anér Christology and the Gospel of Mark’, in R. N. Longenecker and M. C.
Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament Study, 1974, 144-61; X. Leon-
Dufour, ed., Les Miracles de Jesus selon le Nouveau Testament, 1977; G. Petzke,
Die Traditionen tiber Apollonius von Tyana und das Neue Testament, Studia ad
Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti 1, 1970; L. Sabourin, The Divine Miracles
Discussed and Defended, 1977; M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 1978; G. Theissen,
Urchristliche. Wundergeschichten: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung
der synoptischen Evangelien, 1974; D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle
Worker, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 1, 1972.
Moses
M. R. D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, Society for Biblical Literature
Dissertation Series 42, 1976.
Myth
J. M. Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation, 1977; M. D. Goulder,
ed., Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued, 1979; J. Hick, ed., The Myth of
God Incarnate, 1977; G. S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Function in Ancient and
Other Cultures, 1970; B. Otzen, H. Gottlieb, K. Jeppesen, Myths in the Old Testa-
ment, 1980.
Name
C. T. R. Hayward, ““The Holy Name of the God of Moses and the Prologue of
St. John’s Gospel”, NTS 25, 1978-79, 16-32; G. McConville, ““God’s ‘Name’ and
God’s ‘Glory’ ”’, TB 30, 1979.
1030
ADDENDA
One, Once, Only
M.L. Appold, The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel: Motif Analysis and Exegeti-
cal Probe into the Theology of John, WUNT 2:1, 1976.
Other
J. K. Elliott, ““The use of heteros in the New Testament”, ZNW 60, 1969, 140f.
Parable, Allegory, Proverb
R. Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, NTS 23,
1976-77, 162-76; J. D. Corran, ed., Polyvalent Narration, Semeia 9, 1977; B. Van
Elderen, ““The Purpose of the Parables according to Matthew 13:10-17’, in
R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament
Study, 1974, 180-90; G. E. Ladd, ‘““The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in
Recent Interpretation’, in ibid., 191-99; D. Patte, ed., Semiology and Parables:
An Exploration of the Possibilities Offered by Structuralism for Exegesis, Pittsburgh
Theological Monograph Series 9, 1976.
Paradise
A. T. Lincoln, “‘ ‘Paul the Visionary’: The Setting and Significance of the Rapture
to Paradise in II Corinthians xii. 1-10”, NTS 25, 1978-79, 204-20.
People, Nation, Gentiles, Crowd, City
F. Frick, The City in Ancient Israel, Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation
Series 36, 1977.
Pharisee
M. J. Cook, Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders, Supplements to NovT 51,
1978; “‘Pharisees and Sadducees’’, in Schiirer, II?, 381-403; J. A. Ziesler, ““Luke
and the Pharisees”, NTS 25, 1978-79, 146-57.
Poor
R. J. Karris, “Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben’’, in C. H. Talbert, ed.,
Perspectives on Luke-Acts, 1978, 112-25.
Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money
J. D. M. Derrett, ‘Fresh Light on the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin’, NTS 26,
1979-80, 36-60; R. J. Karris, ““Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben’, in
C. H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts, 1978, 112-25.
Prayer, Ask, Kneel, Beg, Worship, Knock
G. W. Buchanan, ‘‘Worship, Feasts and Ceremonies in the Early Jewish-Christian
Church’, NTS 26, 1979-80, 279-97; P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in
the Letters of Paul, Supplements to NovT 49, 1977; D. E. Saliers, ““Prayer and the
Doctrine of God in Contemporary Theology’, Interpretation 34, 1980, 265-78;
K. Stendahl, “‘Paul at Prayer’, Interpretation 24, 1980, 240-49; A. A. Trites, ‘““The
Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts’’, in C. H. Talbert, ed., Perspectives on Luke-Acts,
1031
ADDENDA
1978, 168-86; D. Willis, ““Contemporary Theology and Prayer’’, Interpretation
34, 1980, 250-64.
Present, Day, Maranatha, Parousia
D. E. Aune, ‘“‘The Significance of the Delay of the Parousia for Early Christianity”,
in G. F. Hawthorne, ed., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Studies in
Honor of Merrill C. Tenney, 1975, 87-109; C. B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispen-
sationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications, 1960; R. Bauck-
ham, “‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, NTS 23, 1976-77, 162-76;
R. G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, 1977; A. Hoekema,
The Bible and the Future, 1978; A. J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the Last Things: A
Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought, 1979; A. C. Thiselton,
“Realized Eschatology at Corinth’, NTS 24, 1977-78, 510-26; S. Travis, “The
Value of Apocalyptic’, TB 30, 1979; T. P. Weber, Living in the Shadow of the
Second Coming: American Premillennialism, 1875-1925, 1979.
1032
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11